Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the continuing disorder in Palestine arises from influences external to Palestine; whether he proposed to maintain the existing limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine and for how long; and whether he will be able to announce, on the reassembly of Parliament after the Recess, the policy of His Majesty's Government in respect to the future government of Palestine?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As regards the first part of the Question, I am unable to make a precise estimate. It is, of course, well known that armed bands from outside Palestine have crossed the frontier. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 6 and 7 of my predecessor's despatch of 10th March, 1938, to the High Commissioner for Palestine, which was published at the time in the proceedings of the House, and to which I have at present nothing to add. As regards the third part of the Question, it is not possible at present to foresee when it will be possible to make an announcement, but I recognise the desirability of the announcement being made at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Crossley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the temporary suspension of immigration into Palestine for a period of three months?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir. I see no ground for going beyond the special restrictions

which have already been imposed on Jewish immigration into Palestine during the present "interim" period.

Mr. Crossley: Will my right hon. Friend remember, if the situation should not improve, that this remedy has already twice been put into operation, by Lord Samuel and by Sir John Chancellor, with good results?

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend remember that a time when the Jews are being persecuted in Germany and Austria is not a time for putting into force these restrictions?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be in a position to indicate proposals for the future government of Malta?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I apologise for the length of the Reply. His Majesty's Government have now reached certain conclusions regarding the new Constitution for Malta which it is proposed shortly to submit to His Majesty in the form of draft Letters Patent. This Constitution will afford the people of the Colony a considerable measure of participation in the conduct of their own affairs. There is no question of restoring responsible government, nor do His Majesty's Government consider that this will be practicable within any period which can at present be foreseen. But the new Constitution will provide for the establishment of a Legislature, in which the people will be associated through elected representatives with the government of the Colony.
The Legislature, to be known as the Council of Government, will be composed of eight official members, two unofficial members nominated by the Governor at his discretion, and 10 elected members. The Governor will preside over the council and will have a casting, but not an original, vote. Ministers of religion will not be eligible for election as members of the council. As in the case of similar Constitutions in other parts of the Empire, the powers of the Council of Government will be subject to certain limitations. For example, the Governor will have certain overriding powers of legislation and will be able to restrict discussion on defence matters whenever he considers it desirable


in the public interest. Language questions will be excluded from discussion or control by the Council of Government. The provisions relating to the franchise will be in the first instance the same as those provided in the 1921 Constitution for elections for the Legislative Assembly. It will be understood that some considerable time must elapse before the new Constitution can be brought into effect. After the Letters Patent are passed, some months will be necessarily occupied in Malta in preparing for the elections, for which a new Register of Voters will have to be compiled.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the limitations on representative government in the Island, will the House have an opportunity of discussing the new Constitution before the Letters Patent are enacted, and will the right hon. Gentleman also say whether the Anglo-Italian Agreement provides for non-intervention by Mussolini or the Italian Government in the affairs of Malta?

Mr. MacDonald: With regard to the first part of the question, I cannot give any definite statement regarding the date when the Letters Patent will be completed and published. With regard to the second part, there is, of course, no question of Italian interference in the affairs of the Government of the Colony.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Are ministers of religion the only class to be excluded from the Assembly, and is membership of the Assembly to be open to all British subjects resident on the Island of Malta?

Mr. MacDonald: The only new class to be excluded are ministers of religion.

Mr. Day: Is it intended to publish His Majesty's Government's conclusions in detail?

Mr. MacDonald: The details will be published when the Letters Patent are published.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has been consulted as to the measures to carry out the recent declarations of policy of responsible Ministers in Southern Rhodesia as to discrimination and complete

segregation of Africans in this Colony; and what steps is he taking in view of the declared policy of His Majesty's Government in respect of equality and development to full citizenship of all His Majesty's subjects?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Lord Stanley): I am not aware what particular declarations by Southern Rhodesia Ministers the hon. Member has in mind. According to Press reports, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia stated last March that the policy which he advocates is that the two races should develop side by side, the interests of each race being paramount in its own sphere. I have not been consulted as regards any proposed legislation in this connection, and no question of any action on the part of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would appear to arise.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the recent speech by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, which clearly makes an alteration of general policy in regard to the entrance into the life of the Colony of natives of full citizenship, will His Majesty's Government make it perfectly clear that we do not stand for the subordination of one race in a colony?.

Lord Stanley: As far as I know, there is no intention of any change of policy.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Noble Lord aware that there is considerable feeling about the inferior status of coloured people in the Colonies, which has many times been adversely commented upon to the detriment of Great Britain by Germans and Italians?

Lord Stanley: That certainly is not my information.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ABANDONED MINES AND SEAMS.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal seams or mines that have been abandoned during the year 1937 in the collieries situate in the township of Abram, near Wigan, and in the township of Ashton-in-Maker-field, stating the primary reason for their abandonment; and to what extent the unworked coal is likely to be worked from other directions?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): During the year 1937 no coal mine or seam in the parish of Abram was abandoned. In the parish of Ashton-in-Makerfield no mine was abandoned in 1937, but in each of two collieries one seam was abandoned for economic reasons. In each case the colliery is still working, and the unworked coal could be got from these mines if it were found profitable to work it.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman consulted in any way before the closing down of seams or mines?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give instructions that in future, before a seam or colliery is closed, his Department shall be consulted by the colliery company?

Captain Crookshank: These were abandoned for economic reasons over which I have no control.

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal seams or mines that have been abandoned in Lancashire and Cheshire during the last 10 years owing to the lack of adequate pumping machinery; and what action was taken by the Mines Department to try to avoid abandoning these seams or mines?

Captain Crookshank: During the last 10 years six mines in Lancashire and three in Cheshire have been abandoned through lack of adequate pumping machinery. Of these all but two were small mines employing only a few persons. Another mine was closed because the quantity of water to be dealt with made working unprofitable. With regard to the last part of the question, as the hon. Member is aware, in order to establish a joint pumping scheme it is in practice necessary to have in favour of such a scheme a majority of the colliery owners concerned, which so far it has not been possible to obtain. My Department is always ready to give any assistance in its power to this end, but cannot compel agreement.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the lack of pumping machinery is ruining big coal areas in Lancashire and other parts of the country, and will he take more action

to get the colliery companies to consider this matter favourably?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: What is the number of employés in the two mines to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred as being different from the others which employ only a few?

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid I have not got that information at hand, and could not give it without notice. As regards the question of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Macdonald), I think the question he asked and my reply may serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mines closed down in Leigh during 1937; the names of the colliery companies which owned them; the cause of closing; and the number of persons put out of work?

Captain Crookshank: During 1937 one mine in Leigh parish was abandoned. This was Heyfield and West Leigh Colliery, owned by the West Leigh Colliery Company, Limited, and on 31st December, 1936, it employed a total of 1,315 persons. The mine was closed for economic reasons.

Mr. Tinker: When events such as this take place, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman warn the Prime Minister of the distress caused by unemployment, so that steps can be taken by the Cabinet to deal with the matter?

Captain Crookshank: I think it would be unreasonable to say in public what communications pass between Ministers.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the closing down of these pits due to over-capitalisation?

Mr. Tinker: If I may say so with respect, that was hardly a fair reply of the Minister. Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman treat the question more seriously than he has done?

Mr. David Grenfell: Is it not advisable that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should communicate with the owners in districts where there are many mines and where the closing of one mine affects a large number of collieries, with a view to asking the owners to get together to consider whether they cannot take joint action to save the mines?

PIT-HEAD BATHS.

Mr. Grenfell: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now make any statement with regard to pit-head baths?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. This matter has been for some time under consideration in view of the urgent need for the more rapid provision of pit-head baths. The Government propose during the next session of Parliament to introduce a Measure to increase the output levy from ½d. to 1d. for a period of five years, commencing with the levy on the 1938 output, the extra amount to be earmarked for the provision of baths.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (STATISTICS).

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of public assistance in July, 1931, and at the latest date on which figures are available, giving separate figures for Lancashire?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): On Saturday, 11th July, 1931, the number for England and Wales, excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals, was 968,107. The corresponding number on Saturday, 9th July, 1938, the latest date for which figures are available, was 1,028,926. The figures for the Administrative County of Lancaster, together with the 17 associated county boroughs, were 139,100 and 167,496 respectively.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of those people were in receipt of old age pensions?

Mr. Elliot: Not without notice.

UNEMPLOYMENT (CLOSED MILLS, LANCASHIRE).

Mr. Tinker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the closing down of a mill at Leigh that employed 300 people, and that two other mills employing 1,400 people have received notice that on 27th August they will close down for three weeks; and will he have inquiries made to find out the cause and to see whether anything can be done to ease the position?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am informed that the first mill referred to has been closed on a transfer of its work to another part of Lancashire. I am also informed that the other two mills have been running full time for a number of years and that production has latterly exceeded demand. It is hoped to resume full time working after the interval of three weeks.

Mr. Tinker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything is done by his Department to prevent this kind of happening, or to make preparations to absorb the unemployed when it does take place? After all, it is a serious matter for the people of Lancashire?

Mr. Stanley: Of course, there are two parts to this question. One is a mere temporary closing, and after the three weeks it is hoped that everybody will be absorbed again in the same undertaking. The other is part of a reorganisation scheme which will give a lot of work in another part of Lancashire, not very far away. Any question of transference, is a question for the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. R. Gibson: Is there liaison between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Ministry of Labour in such a case?

Mr. Stanley: indicated assent.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of mills have closed down in Leigh and others are on notice; that similar circumstances are prevalent in Lancashire; and will he set up a department with a Minister whose work will be to examine and report to the Cabinet changes in industrial conditions so that plans can be prepared to be in readiness to meet slumps and thus prevent hardships that arise at present?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As regards the first and second parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to-day to his Question No. 12 addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. In reply to the last part of the Question, I would refer him to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th July to the hon. and


learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson). I do not think that any additional machinery is necessary.

Mr. Tinker: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a speech of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in which he said that the Special Areas were on the increase and that, unless something were done, the whole country would become one special area and, in view of that statement by a prominent ex-Member of the Government, is not my Question worth consideration from the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: Reports continually come to us from the Departments concerned, and we get full information as to the conditions of employment throughout the country.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment, contrary to the usual trend, is now rising, and in view of the on-coming winter and the serious position of a large number of very poor people, will he not consider during the Recess what emergency steps and additional steps can be taken to deal with the position?

The Prime Minister: I should not like to reply to that in the affirmative, because it might rouse hopes which could not be fulfilled. The opinion of His Majesty's Government is that the emergency work which has been put in hand for the purpose of dealing with unemployment has not proved in the past effective. The number of people who can be dealt with in that way is exceedingly small in proportion to the cost. There are several other ways in which something may be done to mitigate the fluctuations in trade, and I can assure the hon. Member that the Government have them very closely in mind all the time.

Sir Percy Harris: Is not the Prime Minister conscious that the serious feature of the position to-day is that the depression is taking place in spite of a tremendous expansion of expenditure on armaments, and will he ask the Service Departments to see that that expenditure is directed to those areas that are feeling the full pressure of industrial depression?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Baronet knows that the Government have throughout done their very best to direct expenditure

upon armaments to those areas where unemployment is most prevalent. We have, indeed, on numerous occasions taken action in cases where, if we had considered simply the desirability of getting the work out in the quickest time, we should have sent the work elsewhere, but it has been deliberately diverted to places where it was most required. There, again, I think the general question of trade is one to which we have to direct our attention. I deprecate any suggestion that we are on the edge of a slump or of a return to any such conditions as existed in 1931.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the most familiar sight in Lancashire is notices of sales of mills, that these are not temporary matters, and that it is not a question of the possibility of a coming slump? Will he consider, in view of what is taking place and the trade that is being destroyed—because the machinery is being broken up—having something done to take its place between now and the reassembly of Parliament? Lancashire is going down all the time.

The Prime Minister: The Government are very conscious of the difficulties of Lancashire, and are anxious to do anything they can. The hon. Member has given me credit for greater powers than any wizard has ever claimed if he thinks that I can devise during the Recess some new industries to take the place of the cotton industry.

Sir Joseph Nall: Is not emergency work a very poor substitute for a revival of the export trade; and, as regards this matter of the export trade, will my right hon. Friend cause the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office to work in greater collaboration with the Board of Trade than has been the case so far?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not a fact that increasing unemployment in the textile industry is largely attributable to the fact that the pound sterling is too highly valued in the foreign exchange market?

The Prime Minister: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

WHALING SHIPS (BRITISH SEAMEN).

Mr. R. Law: asked the President of the Board of Trade the proportion of


British seamen employed in British whaling ships during the last season in the Antarctic?

Mr. Stanley: As only a few of the British whaling ships are registered in the United Kingdom, it is not possible to give, from official records, the figures for which my hon. Friend asks, but I understand from the British whaling companies in this country that about 22 per cent. of the total personnel of their factory ships and whale catchers during the 1937–38 season were British.

Mr. Law: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very serious distress among British fishermen of this class; and will he consider recommending to these companies that they should do everything in their power to increase the number of British deep-sea fishermen employed?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, in fact, they have done so. As far as I am aware, up to 1936, practically the whole of the whaling fleet was manned by Norwegians, and the 22 per cent. has been achieved entirely in the last two years.

REGISTER (TRANSFERS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the ports of registry of the 207 ships purchased from foreign countries during the six months ended 30th June last and in what British ports these ships were registered; what were the ports of registry of the 141 British ships sold to foreign countries during the same period and in what foreign ports they were registered after such sale; and what was the total tonnage of the ships so bought and sold, respectively?

Mr. O. Stanley: As the reply contains tabular statements I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The foreign ports of registry of the 207 ships transferred from foreign countries to the British flag during the six months ended 30th June, 1938, are not known, but the previous nationalities of the ships were as follow:—


Belgium
…
…
…
…
1


China
…
…
…
…
16


Denmark
…
…
…
…
8


Egypt
…
…
…
…
1





France
…
…
…
…
22


Finland
…
…
…
…
5


Germany
…
…
…
…
6


Greece
…
…
…
…
9


Holland
…
…
…
…
65


Hungary
…
…
…
…
1


Italy
…
…
…
…
2


Japan
…
…
…
…
1


Lithuania

…
…
…
1


Norway
…
…
…
…
8


Portugal
…
…
…
…
1


Sarawak
…
…
…
…
1


Spain
…
…
…
…
1


Sweden
…
…
…
…
3


U.S.A.
…
…
…
…
54


Unknown
…
…
…
…
1

Of these 207 ships 41 were granted provisional certificates of British registry, while the remaining 166 were registered at the following British ports of registry:—


Amherstburg, Ontario

…
1


Bristol
…
…
1


Cape Town
…
…
2


Colchester
…
…
1


Cowes
…
…
1


Dublin
…
…
4


Dundee
…
…
1


Fowey
…
…
2


Gibraltar
…
…
5


Glasgow
…
…
3


Greenock
…
…
1


Halifax, N.S.
…
…
1


Hamilton, Bermuda
…
…
3


Hong Kong
…
…
5


Hull
…
…
3


Ipswich
…
…
2


Jersey
…
…
1


La Hove, N.S.
…
…
1


Leith
…
…
2


Liverpool
…
…
2


London
…
…
68


Maldon
…
…
1


Malta
…
…
2


Milford
…
…
1


Mombasa
…
…
1


Montreal
…
…
4


Newcastle
…
…
3


Owen Sound
…
…
1


Plymouth
…
…
2


Poole
…
…
3


Port Arthur, Ontario
…
…
2


Portsmouth
…
…
4


Shanghai
…
…
14


Singapore
…
…
2


Southampton
…
…
9


Swansea
…
…
1


Sydney, N.S.
…
…
1


Toronto, Ontario
…
…
1


Vancouver, B.C
…
…
2


Wisbech
…
…
1


Yarmouth, N.S.
…
…
1

The ports of registry of the 141 British ships sold to foreign countries during the same period were as follow:—


Aberdeen
…
2


Basseterre, St. Kitts
…
1


Belize, B.H.
…
1


Bideford
…
2


Brisbane
…
1






Bristol
…
4


Colchester
…
1


Cowes
…
1


Dublin
…
1


Dumfries
…
1


Fleetwood
…
2


Fowey
…



Georgetown, Cayman Islands
…
3


Gibraltar
…
2


Glasgow
…
8


Grimsby
…
10


Hong Kong
…
6


Hull
…
9


Liverpool
…
4


Llanelly
…
1


London
…
38


Lowestoft
…
1


Malta
…
1


Montreal
…



Nassau, N.P
…
1


Parrsborough, N.S
…
1


Plymouth
…
1


Portsmouth
…
2


Rangoon
…
2


St. Andrew's, N.B
…
3


St. Ives
…
1


St. John's, N.F.L
…
2


Shanghai
…
8


Singapore
…
6


Southampton
…
7


Swansea
…
1


Toronto
…
1


Weymouth, N.S.
…
1


W. Hartlepool
…
2

The foreign ports of registry to which these ships were transferred are not known, but the countries to which they were sold were—

Belgium
…
…
…
4


Chili
…
…
…
2


China
…
…
…
19


Colombia
…
…
…
2


Denmark
…
…
…
12


Egypt
…
…
…
4


Estonia
…
…
…
2


Finland
…
…
…
2


France
…
…
…
19


Germany
…
…
…
6


Greece
…
…
…
3


Holland
…
…
…
8


Honduras
…
…
…
2


Italy
…
…
…
10


Japan
…
…
…
6


Latvia
…
…
…
1


Norway
…
…
…
7


Palestine
…
…
…
1


Portugal
…
…
…
2


Soviet Russia
…
…
…
1


Spain
…
…
…
2


Sudan
…
…
…
1


Sweden
…
…
…
1


Turkey
…
…
…
5


U.S.A.
…
…
…
14


Uruguay
…
…
…
1


Venezuela
…
…
…
3


Yugoslavia
…
…
…
1

The total gross tonnage of the ships coming on to the British register was 343,000 tons, while that of the ships transferred to foreign flags was 213,000 tons.

STRAITS OF GIBRALTAR (GUN BATTERIES).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the installation of heavy guns in the vicinity of Gibraltar, His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Spanish insurgent authorities on the matter?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): As I informed the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on 13th April, the situation has been closely watched. As a result of a fresh examination of the question which has recently been expressly made, His Majesty's Government do not consider it necessary to make any representations at the present time.

SPAIN.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desirability of the war in Spain being brought to a speedy conclusion, he will endeavour to obtain from the leaders of the Spanish Government and of the nationalist forces an assurance that it is not their intention to allow any executions of their opponents or other reprisals in the event of a cessation of hostilities being agreed upon; and whether, upon a peace settlement being made, the British Government will consider help being granted to Spain, by means of credits and in other ways, to enable her to recover from the effects of the war?

Mr. Butler: As regards the first part of the Question, His Majesty's Government have frequently urged the contending Spanish parties to abstain from reprisals, and, as I explained in the House last Tuesday, they are ready to take advantage of any opportunity which may occur for mediation. I fear that the matter raised in the second part of the Question is at present too hypothetical for me to make a statement upon it.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask whether the representations that have been made lead my hon. Friend to believe that the answer to the first part of my Question is likely to be favourable?

Mr. Butler: I sincerely hope so. I am afraid I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Is not the fear of definite reprisals on the cessation of


hostilities on both sides one of the great reasons for the prolongation of the war; and would not the Government consider making joint representations to both sides, and, if possible, securing the good offices of the Vatican in this matter?

Mr. Butler: I am sure that His Majesty's Government would not put anything out of mind in regard to this very serious aspect of the case. As to the question of making representations, I have already dealt with that in my original reply.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Arising out of the last part of the Question, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will in no circumstances, and at no time, make loans to those who have committed repeated acts of piracy against British ships?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information regarding the bombing and sinking of the steamship "Dellwyn," in the harbour of Gandia, on 27th July; and whether he proposes to take any action?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the attack by aircraft on the British steamship "Dellwyn," in the Spanish port of Gandia, showing to what company this ship belonged; what cargo it carried; what was the nature of the attack; and what was the country of origin of the attacking aircraft?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister, with regard to the sinking of the British ship "Dellwyn" in the British-owned port of Gandia, whether the nationality of the aviator and of the aeroplane which destroyed the ship are known; and whether the renewal of attacks on British ships will affect the relations of His Majesty's Government with the Burgos authorities?

Mr. Butler: The British steamship "Dellwyn," belonging to the Dellwyn Steamship Company of Cardiff, and carrying a cargo of coal, was attacked at Gandia on 26th July by a single low-flying aircraft and sank as a result of the damage sustained. Reports hitherto received suggest that the attack on this vessel was deliberate. If, on further investigation, this view was confirmed, His

Majesty's Government would at once request the Commission, which is being formed to investigate such cases, to examine without delay the circumstances of this attack.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that this ship was attacked on four separate occasions before she was sunk; that the aircraft came very low over her and machine-gunned her repeatedly, and, in view of those facts, will the Government not immediately withdraw Sir Robert Hodgson definitely from Burgos?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I accept as substantially correct the statements which the hon. Gentleman has made, but I think it is better to follow the course which I have suggested in my original reply, that if, on further investigation, the view that these attacks are deliberate is confirmed, we should then request the Commission which has been formed for the purpose to examine without delay the circumstances of this particular case.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this Commission is to receive oral evidence or evidence in writing, and will evidence be received from members of the crews of any of the ships which have been attacked?

Mr. Butler: It is precisely that sort of problem which our agent at Burgos will work out with the Burgos authorities.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has it not been proved that measures of this kind are not sufficient either to stop these attacks or even to secure compensation?

Mr. Butler: That is precisely why this new measure has been proposed, and I think we should give it every chance of operating.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will witnesses from the area which is under Spanish Government control be allowed to give evidence?

Mr. Cocks: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government know the type of the aeroplane and the country of origin?

Mr. Butler: That is one of the points upon which we are awaiting further information.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that substantial reinforcements in men and materials have been supplied to General Franco from Italy in recent weeks; and whether he will give the House the information he possesses on the subject?

Mr. Butler: While I cannot subscribe to the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement, I shall, of course, be prepared to cause enquiries to be made into any reliable reports on this subject which the hon. Member will send me.

Mr. Cocks: Has not the hon. Gentleman any information at all as to the reinforcements which are being sent from Italy to General Franco in recent weeks?

Mr. Butler: I have always said that we have sources of information, but I could not go as far as the hon. Gentleman does in the Question which he has put on the Paper.

Mr. Cocks: How far can the hon. Gentleman go?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that His Majesty's Government's recent proposals to General Franco do not by implication recognise the legitimacy of indiscriminate air attacks on ports remote from the battle front or legitimacy of attempts to establish a blockade by means of aircraft?

Mr. Butler: The proposals in question do not imply any such recognition.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that the Government definitely repudiate the legitimacy of indiscriminate attacks on ports, and that they still adhere to their view that it is not legitimate in international law to attempt to establish a blockade by air?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; the Government stand by the view expressed by the Prime Minister on 13th July, which was:
His Majesty's Government have made it plain that they cannot accept as legitimate the bombing and sinking by aircraft of merchant ships."—[OFFIcrAr REPORT, 13th July, 1938. Col. 1334, Vol. 338.]

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has that been made plain again in the recent note to General Franco?

Mr. Butler: I think General Franco is personally well aware of our view on this matter.

Miss Rathbone: Are we to regard the Prime Minister's statement of some weeks ago—that if these deliberate attacks continued they must affect friendly relations between this country and the Burgos authorities—as withdrawn, since it has never been in any way implemented, in spite of recent occurrences?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement as to the replies received from the Spanish Government and the Burgos authorities as to the British plan for removal of foreign combatants from Spain?

Mr. Butler: The reply of the Spanish Government has now been published. It contains a number of observations on detail, but His Majesty's Government for their part regard this prompt reply as being an acceptance of the Non-Intervention Committee's plan as a whole. I understand that the Burgos authorities are studying the plan urgently with a view to an early reply.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it proposed to ask the Burgos authorities to expedite their reply so that it will be received shortly?

Mr. Butler: We hope to receive the reply and forward it to the Non-Intervention Commitee. I will certainly consider the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister how many attacks by the insurgents on the British-owned port of Gandia has taken place; and whether His Majesty's Government has considered taking any special steps for its protection?

Mr. Butler: There have been seven attacks on the port of Gandia by General Franco's forces. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Lady on 27th June.

Miss Rathbone: Seeing that this is a fresh attack and a peculiarly deliberate one, as shown by the hon. Gentleman's own statement, will it not have a serious effect on the prestige of the British Government if warnings repeatedly given by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are not in any way implemented?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Lady asked me what action we should take, and I said in my previous reply that although this port is leased by a British company, it remains part of the territory of Spain, and that if we were to go on to the territory of Spain and defend it, we should be taking part in the war, which we are not prepared to do.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are there not many precedents in history, including precedents in the civil war in Spain, for action being taken within territorial waters to protect British shipping from attack, and will the hon. Gentleman look up the precedent of 1873 on this matter?

Mr. Hannah: Are those precedents encouraging?

Mr. Cocks: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the sinking of the steamship "Dellwyn" at Gandia, on 27th July, was witnessed by His Majesty's ship "Hero"; and whether the latter vessel took any action against the hostile aeroplane?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): The answer to the first part of the question is yes, Sir; and to the second part no, Sir.

Mr. Cocks: Have the British naval authorities been given instructions to allow British ships to be hit and sunk under the very guns of the British Navy, and that on no occasion shall anybody fire upon the Italian friends of the Government?

Colonel Llewellin: The instructions given to the Royal Navy are in accordance with the policy of the Government, which is to give full protection to British ships outside territorial waters and not to give such protection inside territorial waters.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman any knowledge of any previous case in British history where a British ship has been sunk in any waters under the eyes of the British Fleet and the British Fleet have not taken action? Is there a precedent for it? I do not know of any?

Colonel Llewellin: I should certainly require notice of that question.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: Was a British ship sunk under the eyes of the British Navy?

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any further information as to the circumstances in which the observing officer of the Non-Intervention Committee was killed during an attack on the British ship "Kellwyn"?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Urgent steps are being taken with a view to obtaining confirmation of reports which have appeared in the Press on the subject.

Mr. Attlee: Is any action taken on the Non-Intervention Committee when their officers are killed in this way? Is the matter taken up by the Non-Intervention Committee at all? Is any notice taken of it?

The Prime Minister: I think that in similar cases the matter has been taken up by the Non-Intervention Committee, with a view to making the only amends that can be made in the matter, and that is compensation.

Mr. Attlee: Is no protest made by the members of the Non-Intervention Committee against the killing of their officers, who are specially appointed to accompany these ships to the places to which they go, in conformity with the arrangements made and under the orders of this Committee? Do the Committee just sit down under this state of affairs—the whole lot of them?

The Prime Minister: It is not reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to expect me to answer a question of that kind without notice. It is a question concerning the actions of the Non-Intervention Committee, and I cannot be expected to know everything they do. Of course, if I had notice I could find out.

Mr. Attlee: Has this matter been brought to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and of the right hon. Gentleman, and may I ask whether any instructions have been given to our representatives on the Non-Intervention Committee to do anything in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by "this matter." If he means the matter on which he is asking a question, of course that has been brought to the notice of the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Attlee: This is not the first occasion on which observation officers of the Non-Intervention Committee have been killed. I am asking whether they can kill observation officers just as they can kill anybody else without any protest being made?

The Prime Minister: I really do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "they can kill observation officers." I have already said that I do not know what the circumstances are in which this observation officer was killed, and until we get the information, for which we have urgently asked, I do not think we had better make any assumptions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not this the third observation officer killed? Was not the first killed some months ago? If the Non-Intervention Committee are to continue to send officers, ought they not to take measures for their protection, or, if they cannot protect them, ought they not to cease to send them on these international duties?

The Prime Minister: It is difficult to answer that question offhand, but, of course, I quite agree that if non-intervention observers are liable to be killed in the performance of their duties it may be difficult to expect them to perform those duties, and it may give rise to complications which will have to be considered and dealt with.

Sir P. Harris: Is it not the point that this is not a matter for this country alone but for all the countries which are represented on the Non-Intervention Committee? Ought they not to take co-operative action to protest, rather than that it should be left to ourselves? Ought not that to be impressed upon the Committee?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Baronet that it is a matter for all those concerned in their joint capacity.

Mr. Grenfell: Whatever the nationality of the observation officer, is it not the responsibility of all the 27 signatory States to protest or to give warning that they expect their representatives, of whatever nationality, to be respected on the high seas?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member could not have understood me. That is precisely what I was saying. It is not the business merely of the country to

which the observation officer who happens to be killed belongs, but the duty of all the countries which are concerned in this joint arrangement to take whatever steps may be necessary.

Mr. Attlee: My question was whether any instructions had been given to our representatives to raise this matter on the Non-Intervention Committee, so that all the States could bring pressure to bear upon the perpetrator. I am asking whether any instructions have been given to our representatives on the Non-Intervention Committee?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must not talk as though this were a deliberate attempt to kill observation officers. The observation officer has been killed because his duties brought him in close proximity to the objective, whatever the objective was, which was being aimed at. I understand that the matter has been discussed on the Non-Intervention Committee, and that they have had under consideration suggestions for making it safer for these observation officers to perform their duties in the future, and I cannot go further than that.

WOMEN POLICE, LONDON.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of policewomen employed in the Metropolitan police area and the total annual cost, giving the figures separately for their pay, cost of rent allowance, uniform, and other incidental charges?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): One woman police superintendent and 105 other ranks are employed in the Metropolitan Police District, to whom total annual payments are made of £21,441, consisting of £19,437 for pay, £953 for rent allowance, £860 for uniform, and £191 for other incidental payments.

Mr. Day: Can the Noble Lord say whether there is any superannuation plan in connection with these policewomen?

Earl Winterton: Not without notice.

PROPERTY DEMOLITION, LONDON (SAFETY MEASURES).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary what action is taken by the chief


of the Metropolitan police to protect the people when property is being demolished in the various parts of the Metropolitan police area?

Earl Winterton: The Metropolitan Police have no special statutory duties in connection with demolitions, nor have they any instructions specifically relating to demolitions as such. They are, however, instructed wherever buildings or structures appear to be in a dangerous condition to warn any occupants, to prevent pedestrians from passing near, and where necessary to divert traffic.

Mr. Thorne: Is the noble lord aware that a woman was killed in consequence of a hoarding not being properly protected; and surely somebody is responsible in such cases?

Earl Winterton: If the hon. Member has in mind the recent case in Newport, the circumstances there are quite different. There are no regulations, I understand, in that particular place such as exist in London in regard to the demolition of buildings.

EXPLOSION (OLDHAM ICE COMPANY'S WORKS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the explosion at the Oldham Ice Company's works at Falcon Street on Saturday last; what was the cause of the explosion; and how many people were injured by the ammonia inhaled?

Earl Winterton: From a preliminary report which my right hon. Friend has received, it appears that the explosion originated in a brine cooler which was under repair. I have not full information as to how many persons were injured or affected, but I understand that two of the three employés on the premises were affected by the fumes, and are now in the infirmary. The matter is being fully investigated.

FLYING OVER A CROWD, LONDON.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Home Secretary whether it has been decided to prosecute the owner of the aeroplane which flew over the crowd assembled in

the garden of Buckingham Palace on Monday, 18th July?

Earl Winterton: The inquiries which are being made in this matter have not yet been completed.

Mr. Hannah: Would this not be a good subject for extra taxation, if we are to have this form of advertisement?

Earl Winterton: That is a question that should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Crossley: Am I right in imagining that it is the ordinary constable in the street who is responsible for the detection of these aeroplanes and of what number is on them?

Earl Winterton: That would really depend on the circumstances. The difficulty in this particular case—I will be perfectly frank about it—is that there are conflicting reports as to where and how the aeroplane flew, and those conflicting reports are now being investigated.

Mr. Crossley: Will the Noble Lord bear in mind that there is a very considerable nuisance from these low-flying aeroplanes?

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the fact that the noble Lord considers it right to make inquiries into this matter, will he also reconsider the attitude he adopted when complaints were made about aeroplanes flying low over pit accidents in order to take photographs while hundreds of broken-hearted women stood there and were affected by that kind of thing?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

EMPLOYéS (RETIREMENT).

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the number of employés who, have taken advantage of and made application to retire at the age of 55 in accordance with the circular issued by the Post Office in 1934; and how many applications were granted or refused, and the grounds for such refusals?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): 170 employés have applied under the terms of the circular, and 78 of the applications have been granted. 92 have been refused because it could not be shown that premature retirement would result in economy.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. Gentleman say what are the conditions which have to be considered when this refusal is made?

Sir W. Womersley: Every case is dealt with on its merits, and it must be shown that there is a definite economy in the retirement before permission can be granted.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any appeal allowed?

AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, GREENOCK.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Postmaster-General when the new Greenock automatic telephone system will be in operation?

Sir W. Womersley: The Greenock exchange will, it is hoped, be converted to automatic working in 1941.

Mr. Gibson: Is it intended that this new automatic telephone system shall be contained in a new building, and has the new building been erected or is it in course of erection?

Sir W. Womersley: It will be in a new building, and a site has been approved, but there are certain legal difficulties to get over. My hon. and learned Friend will understand what that means in the way of delay. When the difficulties are overcome, we hope to proceed at once with the building.

Mr. Gibson: Will the hon. Member say whether all these things were in the mind of his right hon. Friend when, on 21st April, 1937, he told me that that new automatic telephone exchange would be in operation at the end of 1940?

Sir W. Womersley: No. What was in his mind at that time was the difficulty of getting a site, which he thought had been overcome, but he never contemplated the dreadful position of having legal gentlemen to deal with.

Mr. Gibson: On a point of Order. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not there are legal advisers for his Department?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (HEADLIGHTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to make regulations for the purpose of regulating the

use of powerful headlights on motor vehicles; what was the last occasion on which any communication passed between his Department and the various motoring organisations on this subject; and what has been the result of same?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): As at present advised, my right hon. Friend is not proposing to make further regulations regarding headlights on motor vehicles. The organisations concerned were last consulted on this subject in 1936, and, as a result, the Motor Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1936, were made. Those regulations required, amongst other matters, the fitting of dipping or deflecting devices to headlights.

Mr. Day: Have the Department any statistics to show the number of accidents attributable to this cause?

Captain Hudson: I think so, but I would not like to give a definite answer without notice.

STREETS (BREAKING UP).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet consulted with other Departments as to the existing provisions of the Gas Works Clauses Act, and similar Acts, relating to the breaking up of streets; and, if so, with what result?

Captain Hudson: As a result of preliminary consultation it has been decided to move for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the subject, but the precise terms of reference have still to be settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

INSTITUTE OF AUCTIONEERS.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he has any statement to make regarding the complaint of the Institute of Auctioneers in Scotland, brought to his attention by the hon. Member for East Fife?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I am considering the complaint in question, and I will write to the hon. Member about it as soon as possible.

PRISONS.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he


is aware that the late Sir Godfrey Collins, then Secretary of State for Scotland, promised to this House in July, 1935, that the prison regulations were to be completely reviewed; whether this has yet been done; and when they will be available for sale to the public?

Mr. Colville: The revision referred to is proceeding, and arrangements have recently been made to expedite its completion.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the very great delay in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman hasten this report as much as possible, and will he make it available to the prison officers themselves?

Mr. Colville: My answer indicates that I am doing everything I can to ensure its completion.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the letter sent to him in which the writer describes the conditions prevailing at Barlinnie prison officers' houses in regard to bad drains and drinking water; and whether he will remedy this state of affairs which should not exist in property under the direct ownership and surveillance of a Department of the State?

Mr. Colville: I assume that the hon. Member refers to an extract from the Prison Officers Magazine for November, 1937, which I received from him yesterday. I am looking into the points raised in it, and I will communicate with him as soon as possible.

Mr. Davidson: Will those points be looked into during the Recess?

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a large number of the bandages in use in the surgery ward of Barlinnie prison are, after use, sent to the prison laundry to be washed and ironed and thereafter returned to the surgery for further use, and that this practice continues until they are no longer usable; and whether he will take immediate steps to put a stop to this state of affairs?

Mr. Colville: I am informed that cotton bandages used for retaining dressings and found to be unsoiled after use are sent to the laundry, where they are steeped in

lysol and then thoroughly washed. If a bandage is soiled, it is destroyed by being burned. No bandage which has been in contact with a wound of any kind is used again. Gauze bandages are not used twice.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the serious view of the prison officers themselves, who have to handle these things, that this practice is carried too far and that bandages are used when they are long past their practical purpose?

Mr. Buchanan: In view of the very small saving in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman not ask that the practice be discontinued, so that, apart from any other reason, there will be confidence in the fact that these bandages are not being so used?

Mr. Colville: My information is that the conditions are quite hygienic, but this is one of the points that I am going to look into.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will carry out in Scotland the various reforms for prisoners serving sentences as outlined by the Home Secretary for prisoners in England; and whether he can state the reasons why he has not carried out any of the reforms in Scotland?

Mr. Colville: Many of the reforms referred to are already in operation in Scotland and others are under consideration.

Mr. Buchanan: Why cannot the Scottish Office introduce these reforms, which have been in operation for some time in England?

Mr. Colville: I understand that the hon. Member will raise this matter later, and I should prefer to deal with it then.

Sir J. Nall: May I ask whether, in view of all these reforms, it is still considered useful to send persons to gaol at all?

Mr. Colville: In certain circumstances it is.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LAND.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what is the present total annual rental receivable by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland from the agricultural tenants of the 439,252 acres of land held by the department


and so let; what is the present total annual sum receivable by the department for the sporting facilities over the 421,685 acres let by the department to third parties; and what were the actual respective sums received during each of the last three years?

Mr. Colville: I shall send the information to the hon. and learned Member as soon as it is available.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Colville: I think the Recess will prevent me from doing that, but I will write to the hon. and learned Member, who will no doubt consider what use he can make of the information.

Mr. Gibson: If I put down a Question for the first day after the Recess, will that do?

Mr. Colville: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE OFFICERS (PRO-MOTION AND PAY).

CAPTAIN H. BALFOUR'S STATEMENT.

Mr. Montague: asked the Secretary of State for Air, whether he has any statement to make regarding the conditions of service of officers of the Royal Air Force?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Yes, Sir. As a result of the inter-Service discussions to which reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in his statement to the House yesterday, I am glad to be able to state that certain improvements will be made in the scales of pay of squadron leaders, wing commanders and air commodores. These improvements are in the case of the two latter ranks, accompanied by the withdrawal of command pay and by an extension of the allowances granted to station commanders in aid of the expenses of official entertainment to which they are put.
Promotion of flying officers of the General Duties branch to flight lieutenants after two years' service in the rank which has for the last two years been given as a temporary measure, will be the standard practice in future.
Instead of being placed on half pay as at present when unemployed during intervals between appointments, officers will in future be retained on full pay and allowances. Officers of the rank of air vice-marshal and above will, however, draw full pay only without allowances. Officers for whom no further employment is available will be placed on the retired list after due notice.
The normal maximum ages of retirement for air chief marshals and air marshals will be reduced from 65 to 6o and those of wing commanders and squadron leaders raised from 48 and 45 to 50 and 47 respectively. The rates of retired pay of officers of the rank of airvice- marshal and air marshals will be improved. The maximum rate of retired pay of group captains will be increased to £750.

Mr. Davidson: Are any changes under consideration for other ranks in the Air Force?

Captain Balfour: With regard to airmen, certain increases in the rates of pay, together with a new system of family allowances, have already been introduced, and my right hon. Friend spoke about them when he introduced the Supplementary Estimate last week.

Mr. Davidson: Are the Government considering at the same time greater facilities for other ranks to become pilots and to have practical flying experience?

Captain Balfour: That is another question.

Sir J. Nall: What effect will these changes have on the average length of service in the case of the majority of officers?

Captain Balfour: I cannot say without notice, but I can give the information by ranks, if my hon. Friend will put a Question down.

EXPORT CREDITS (CHINA).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, for the purpose of securing the export to China of United Kingdom goods which are required for Chinese economic development, His Majesty's Government will sanction adequate financial guarantees by the Export Credits Department,


as were recently provided in the case of Turkey?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on the 12th instant to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price).

Mr. Henderson: As the reply merely deals with the procedure that is followed in ordinary commercial cases, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the special responsibility of this country towards China, another member of the League of Nations, he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will consider the question of China in relation to the special position that exists at the present time, and not merely in relation to an ordinary commercial transaction?

The Prime Minister: That is under consideration at the present time.

Mr. Alexander: Did the reference made the other day from the Front bench to alternatives other than a loan, which was turned down, include a special grant of export credits?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

LIVESTOCK COMMISSION (ANNUAL REPORT).

Mr. Alexander: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Statutory Annual Report of the Livestock Commission due under Section 53 of the Livestock industry Act, 1937, has yet been presented to Ministers, and if so, whether it is proposed to publish the report at an early date?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. The report of the Livestock Commission for the period to 31st March last has this week been presented to Ministers, and it will be published as soon as possible.

EMPIRE FLYING-BOAT BASE, SOUTHAMPTON.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any further progress has been

made in regard to the selection of an Empire Flying Boat base in this country?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. As a result of negotiations which have been carried on recently between the Southampton Harbour Authorities and my Department, at a meeting of the Harbour Board held yesterday the Harbour Commission decided that the arrangements proposed by my Department for the provision of an Empire flying-boat terminal base at Southampton were acceptable in principle. The method of reconciling the development of this terminal with the shipping interests is a matter yet to be explored in detail, and this aspect has been discussed at length with the Harbour Board Authorities. It has now been agreed that statutory powers should be sought for the reservation of an area of water for the exclusive use of aircraft in Southampton Water. The operation of aircraft both by day and night, and in conditions of bad visibility, will be controlled under a new system which is still under discussion with the Harbour Authorities and which will fully protect the shipping interests of the port. I am also in touch with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the members of the Harbour Board and their officers, for the willing co-operation and assistance which have made possible this agreement in principle.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Samuel Schofield Hammersley, Esquire, for the Borough of Willesden (East Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Lancashire County Council (Rivers Board and General Powers) Bill [Lords,]
Warrington Corporation Water Bill [Lords],
Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords,]
Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords],


Penzance Corporation Bill [Lords], Salford Corporation Bill [Lords], Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill [Lords],
West Yorkshire Gas Distribution Bill [Lords], without Amendment,

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order. Before you put the Motion which is on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? In view of the feeling which was expressed in the course of the Question put to the Prime Minister at Question time about internal affairs, in what position are we placed, as ordinary Members of Parliament, if trouble arises in regard to unemployment and we are of opinion that the House should be called together to try to get the Prime Minister to make a statement of what he proposes to do about it? Have we any standing, in appealing to you to call Parliament together?

Mr. Speaker: In the Motion which will be moved, it is stated that the representation must come from the Government, but Members of Parliament can make representations to the Government of the urgency of any matter in respect to which they think it is advisable to call Parliament together.

Mr. Buchanan: Is it the case that such representations would not go direct to you but must go to you via the Government, and that only the Government can make the recommendations to you?

Mr. Speaker: That is the position, from what is stated in the Motion.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 1st November; provided that if it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does so require, he may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and the Government Business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the Order Paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the, Government may appoint, but subject as aforesaid the House shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to the day on which it shall so meet, and any Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for the 1st day of November or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet."—[The Prime
Minister.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

TRADE POSITION.

11.59 a.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: The Question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) upon the Question Paper, and also that which he has just raised regarding the vacation, should make it obvious that Members will be departing to-day for what may be a long vacation with a feeling of extreme nervousness, if not of great apprehension, as to the trade position. In the middle of June, we were indebted to the President of the Board of Trade for a very clear statement of his view of the trade position and he was frank with us, and I make no charge against him of misleading the House. He made a very admirable statement of the exact position, but, from information which has since been supplied to us, the trade position appears to be exceedingly disturbing.
The trade returns for the first six months of this year reveal an adverse trade balance of rather more than £203,000,000, as compared with £191,000,000 for the corresponding six months of last year and the latter figure was an increase of £41,000,000 over the corresponding six months of 1936. I heard the Prime Minister say just now, in. reply to a Supplementary Question, that he would deprecate any statement being made to suggest that we were returning to the kind of slump or trade depression that we experienced in 1932. I would point out that the figure of the adverse trade balance is actually £20,000,000 more than the figure of the corresponding six months of 1931, when the trade balance was used so often against us in that connection. The position is £12,000,000 worse in the first six months of this year than at the same time last year and the adverse balance has grown worse, in spite of——

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned——

Mr. SPEA,KER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1938.
2. Appropriation Act, 1938.
3. Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1938.


4. War Department Property Act, 1938.
5. Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1938.
6. Essential Commodities Reserves Act, 1938.
7. Coal Act, 1938.
8. Hire-Purchase Act, 1938.
9. Architects Registration Act, 1938.
10. Registration of Still-Births (Scotland) Act, 1938.
11. Food and Drugs Act, 1938.
12. Imperial Telegraphs Act, 1938.
13. Chimney Sweepers Acts (Repeal) Act, 1938.
14. Local Government (Hours of Poll) Act, 1938.
15. Anglo-Turkish (Armaments Credit) Agreement Act, 1938.
16. Milk (Extension and Amendment) Act, 1938.
17. British Museum Act, 1938.
18. Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1938.
19. Naval Discipline (Amendment) Act, 1938.
20. Rating and Valuation (Air Raid Works) Act, 1938.
21. Rating and Valuation (Air Raid Works) (Scotland) Act, 1938.
22. Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act, 1938.
23. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1938.
24. Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938.
25. Holidays with Pay Act, 1938.
26. Bacon Industry Act, 1938.
27. Fire Brigades Act, 1938.
28. Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act, 1938.
29. Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
30. Island of Arran Piers Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
31. West Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
32. Ipswich Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
33. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
34. West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
35. Pier and Harbour Order (Plymouth) Confirmation Act, 1938.

36. Land Drainage Provisional Order (Louth Drainage District) Confirmation Act, 1938.
37. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Cirencester) Act, 1938.
38. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wath upon Dearne) Act, 1938.
39. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Church Stretton) Act, 1938.
40. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Horsforth) Act, 1938.
41. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Llandrindod Wells) Act, 1938.
42. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Rawmarsh) Act, 1938.
43. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bucks Water Board) Act, 1938.
44. Bristol Corporation Act, 1938.
45. Chichester Corporation Act, 1938.
46. London County Council (Tunnel and Improvements) Act, 1938.
47. Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Act, 1938.
48. Gateshead and District Tramways and Trolley Vehicles Act, 1938.
49. Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Act, 1938.
50. Stanmore Unused Burial Ground Act, 1938.
51. Guildford Corporation Act, 1938.
52. Canterbury Gas and Water Act, 1938.
53. Workington Corporation Act, 1938.
54. Brighton Corporation (Transport) Act, 1938.
55. Middlesex County Council (Sewerage) Act, 1938.
56. Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Act, 1938.
57. London Passenger Transport Act, 1938.
58. Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938.
59. Lancashire County Council (Rivers Board and General Powers) Act, 1938.
60. Nottingham Corporation Act, 1938.
61. Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Act, 1938.
62. Salford Corporation Act, 1938.
63. Warrington Corporation Water Act, 1938.


64. Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Act, 1938.
65. West Yorkshire Gas Distribution Act, 1938.
66. Penzance Corporation Act, 1938.
67. Tatton Estate Act, 1938.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

12.20 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: When the proceedings were interrupted I was referring to the adverse balance of trade, and I would like to add to what I then mentioned that the adverse balance last year was £52,000,000. I anticipate that in the first six months of the current year the adverse trade balance will' probably be steeper in its effect—it usually is in the first six months—and, therefore, we are facing the danger of an increasingly serious situation. The Federation of British Industries issued recently a manifesto on this subject. I will not quote it at length, but it finishes by saying that no nation can continue indefinitely to face an adverse trade balance of magnitude without permanently weakening the financial structure. In connection with this general trade position which we view with such anxiety, we on this side of the House at any rate are specially concerned with the constantly rising figure of unemployment. On 13th June the total number of registered unemployed was 1,802,000, an increase of 24,000 over the previous month, and on a comparable basis the June figure this year would show an increase of 500,000 over the figure for last June.
We have to remember, also, that 500,000 additional unemployed men mean that 500,000 additional homes are in restricted circumstances and subject to daily and weekly hardship. That is an exceedingly serious matter. As was pointed out in a Supplementary Question to-day, that is the position in spite of the rearmament programme, presumably now almost reaching its peak, and but for which it seems to me the registered figure of unemployment to-day would not be 1,800,000, but some figure nearer 3,000,000. We on this side of the House have asked more than once what was going to be done in regard to this important matter. The Prime Minister referred this morning to efforts to re-establish

international trade. Unfortunately, as it seems to us, over and over again when we have tried to deal with this question, the expenditure on the rearmament programme and the unbalanced state of the Budget have interfered with any really active and constructive policy being announced by the Government to deal with this very serious situation. In spite of the statement of the Prime Minister repeated again this morning, I do not believe for a moment that anyone who examines the facts can feel other than that we are once again in the slough of trade depression.
Some of my colleagues when they spoke on this question on a previous occasion were told that they were alarmists, but the self-deception then practised by the Government was not adopted by the President in June. He was very frank about it. We see evidence on all hands of this serious position, not the least serious feature of which is the present heavy decline in railway traffics. One of the curious features of the situation is that to which attention was drawn by the "Economist". This position is accompanied by a shortage of labour in some industries and high activity in industries of the kind which are usually left dry when there is a slowing down of the tide of trade. In the past the Prime Minister in particular has always argued, and has indeed argued again this morning, against public works being undertaken to relieve depression. But when you consider this question of the varied circumstances of the employment and unemployment position that I have just mentioned, you have to remember that the Prime Minister's Government have, in fact, been relying very largely on special works—rearmament works—to deal with this situation. Yet we have these extraordinary differences in the different industries.
Later on to-day, I understand— and I hope—reference will be made by my hon. Friend to another example which has occurred this week in relation to this argument—the Prime Minister's refusal to consider the contributions that we think ought to be made to the cost of new bridges. The fact is that the President of the Board of Trade ought to be making representations to his colleagues that it is essential in the general trade interests, that urgently required public works of this


character, should be put into operation, as this question is connected not merely with the home position but with the overseas position. Not the least important of these considerations is the present situation of the steel industry. I was very interested to read a long company report this morning in the "Times," in respect of Richard Thomas & Company, the very important steel company at Ebbw Vale. I will take only one short extract. The chairman, Sir William Firth, said:
The absence of new business has been partly due to world depression and general lack of confidence, but largely due to the liquidation of stocks held by customers not only in this country but all over the world. It is very doubtful if normal trading conditions will return until conditions in America have greatly impoved.
Therefore, when we are asking for some special consideration to be given to the usefulness of public works in this country in relation to an industry like the steel industry, we have to keep in mind what is the position overseas in regard to the United States and other countries. The steel industry undoubtedly is in very great need of orders, in spite of the expansion which took place a year or two ago as a result of the rearmament programme. The provision of public works of the kind to which I have referred would be exceedingly valuable.
The President of the Board of Trade has under his wing the Mercantile Marine Department, which is largely affected by this international trade situation. There is no doubt that the effect of the rearmament programme on iron and steel prices has been such that the shipbuilding industry is in danger, I will not say of going out of existence, but at least of beginning the decline towards that position. If the information contained in the Press this week is accurate—I have not checked up with any Chamber of Commerce figures—half the shipping berths in this country are empty, and actually this country is buying more tonnage from abroad than is being built here for foreign countries. It is true that the launchings are very heavy, but these are due to orders placed before the rearmament programme sent costs soaring. British shipowners have recently placed abroad orders to the value of £5,000,000 sterling, and only a few days ago the Canadian Pacific Company had to abandon the

idea of placing orders in this country on account of the high prices. We hear continually that the cost of steel is preventing shipowners from placing orders.
The present position, I know, is due in part to the sharp recession in world trade. What we want to bring to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade is the need for dealing with this situation. The channels of international commerce have been silted up and reduced in number by the operation of quotas, tariffs, currency devices, bilateral arrangements, and be it said, such measures as the Ottawa Agreements. The Minister of Transport, whom I am glad to see come in, was one of the most prolific speakers in this House in putting through our continuous increase of restrictions on international trade. Now the effect is gradually being brought home to us in grave recession and greatly increasing unemployment. I am afraid that the volume of world trade as a whole is now falling. What is more serious in relation to our shipping is that the share of world trade carried in British bottoms is markedly declining. The necessity for doing something about this stands out. I do not want to be unfair, and I know it is much more easy to say that than to produce actual measures, but I remember an occasion when the party opposite were in Opposition and a tremendous attack was made on my right hon. Friend who used to sit in this House, Mr. Tom Shaw, because he used some phrase to the effect that he could not take rabbits out of a hat; yet this morning it was the Prime Minister who said "I should have to be a wizard to do the things which the hon. Member for Leigh is asking for this morning."
I believe—and I speak from my own personal conviction—that there is no real remedy for this position without a substantial move for the restoration of international trade. It is the position of the export trade which has contributed most to the current depression, and which will continue to contribute to the increasing depression. It is through the export trade that we can most usefully attack the problem of growing unemployment. I observe that a short manifesto was issued a week or two ago by the Federation of British Industries, in which they emphasised that exports must be increased, and they suggest that the British tariff should be of the three-decker variety, instead of, as it is in many


instances to-day, the two-decker variety, and that there should be three rates—the lowest applying to the Empire, the middle one to those countries which treat British goods favourably, and the highest to those countries whose treatment of our goods we regard as unfair. I, personally, am a strong opponent of all tariffs and quotas, because I do not believe they are a satisfactory remedy for the international trade position: but in the present circumstances such a three-decker tariff would be an excellent thing, but only if the third schedule on commodities is drawn between two existing ones and provides concessions to countries that agree to facilitate our export trade.
There is a widespread feeling that the time is opportune for the countries that desire greater freedom in the exchange of goods to get together to promote it. If we could have an agreement on these lines it would be useful as a stimulating example to the rest of the world. That is why we asked to be allowed this morning to raise the question of the present negotiations on the proposed Anglo-American trade Agreement. We believe that such an agreement would not only help to clear the channels of world trade, but would also be a starting point for a fresh attempt at economic discussion. If I understood the Prime Minister aright the other day, agreement has been reached in respect of a considerable number of the commodities which have been the subject of the negotiations under that suggested American treaty. If I have understood the commercial and economic papers aright, it seems to me that the American Government have already offered to make extremely important tariff concessions for the benefit of United Kingdom manufacturers. Under the working of the most-favoured-nation Clause, the reductions would be applicable over a wide area. In return, I understand that the American Government have suggested that the British Government, among other concessions, should offer American exporters equality of opportunity with British traders in the British Colonial markets.
There is no doubt that there are many things in the Ottawa Agreements which are handicaps to the creation of a framework for freeing world trade. Probably, one of the reasons for the long delay in reaching a trade agreement in regard to

the American negotiations is the difficulties in relation to the Ottawa Treaty, although I should not be at all surprised if there is not also considerable opposition from the British manufacturers and exporters of what I might call the Birmingham type of mind. In that regard I hope that, when the President of the Board of Trade comes to reply, he may tell us what are the actual difficulties which are still standing in the way. We know, however, that when the President has to negotiate with the United States there are a number of commodities and industries which he must come up against—certain Imperial productions and exports. American fruit and lumber, for example, come up against the Canadian, and I understand that the Canadian Government resist very strongly any concession to the United States of American on these particular commodities.
But although we were well behind other countries up to 1931–32 in a protectionist policy, we have in the last six years probably done more than any other country to restrict international trade. Not only have we passed the Import Duties Act and the Ottawa Agreements Act, but we have by Order reversed the open-door policy in regard to trade with our colonies. Therefore, when one bears in mind the fact that this week the Prime Minister has again banged the door upon any immediate consideration of the van Zeeland Report, we ought to press the Government very strongly to tell the House and the country what they are doing and are prepared to do, in face of the very serious adverse trade balance and the growing depression, really to reopen the channels of international trade. It is often argued that the van Zeeland Report would be a very useful document if conditions were more stable on which to begin to operate negotiations. I remember that M. van Zeeland thought that it would be most undesirable, in view of the serious world position, if any attempt were made to delay real discussion or any attempt to open up negotiations.
There is one other point in connection with this international trade position that I should like to mention. The President of the Board of Trade is himself signatory to a White Paper, which was issued, I think, on 20th July, with regard to the Australian trade discussions. I do not


know what the President of the Board of Trade will have to say to us about it, but apparently, reading between the lines of that document, an almost complete deadlock was reached. I would direct specially the attention of the President to paragraph 9 of the report which states that the United Kingdom Ministers are prepared not to press their objection to the interpretations now placed by the Australian Tariff Board upon Article 10. That Article is an undertaking by the Australian Government that their tariffs shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed a level which will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition. Does the White Paper, to which I have just referred, mean that really as a result of these negotiations, for the time being at any rate, the British manufacturers have been let down? We should also like to know whether conversations are taking place with other Dominions in relation to what we regard as fundamental, that is, the urgent and immediate conclusion of a trade agreement with the United States of America. If there are any special difficulties in regard to the other Dominions, I think that, as long as he does not betray any confidences, it would be a good thing for us and for the trade if the President of the Board of Trade would indicate what those particular difficulties are.
I must leave time for other hon. Members to speak on this question, but it is, of course, in Parliamentary practice the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but the situation to which I drew attention at the opening of the Debate, the international trade position, the enormous increase in unemployment in the last 12 months and the increasing difficulties in regard to the social conditions of the people of this country, must surely mean that all parties in the House are concerned with pressing on with the question of trying to reopen the channels of international trade. It would be extremely valuable if the President of the Board of Trade could, therefore, arising out of the broken remarks which I have addressed to him, give us a more detailed report about the position of the Anglo-American negotiations than we got from the Prime Minister last Tuesday. We understand that there are difficulties, but it would help Members of the House, and I am sure it would

help members of the trading community, to try and assist in regard to the situation if we knew more of what those actual difficulties are.
I am more than ever convinced, as a result of a study of the present situation and an analysis of the trade situation for the last eight years, that what we have always said from these Benches has proved to be correct, namely, that the adoption of a policy of tariffs, quotas and restrictions, in order, as it used to be claimed, to maintain employment, has proved to be completely fallacious; that, in fact, with the imposition of Customs Duties to-day of one hundred odd millions more than in 1931, if it were not for the existence of the special emergency armaments programme, we should to-day be in a far worse trade position and employment situation than we were then. The case that we put is that, in spite of the claims that have been made by the Government in the last four or five years as to what tariffs have accomplished, we cannot possibly maintain the situation of this country, with its 45,000,000 people to provide for, unless we get down to a better basis with regard to the flow of international trade. We urge, as the immediate and first step, that the negotiations with the United States may be so pressed as to come to a successful conclusion.

12.44 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: I desire to draw attention to the answer given by the Minister of Transport respecting particularly the Humber Bridge, and other bridges, the schemes of which have been submitted to his Department for approval. We have good reason in this case to be exceedingly disappointed with his answer. I myself, in addition to the local authorities concerned, have been associated with the promotion of the Humber Bridge scheme since 1930. The Bill for the promotion of this bridge passed its Third Reading in July, 1931, after 32 days in Committee and after a good deal of money and valuable time had been expended in the preparation of its details. For the past 12 months we have been endeavouring to induce the Minister to approve of the erection of a new type of bridge that would get over the difficulties that we previously encountered. We have seen the Minister on several occasions and have pressed him by questions to allow us to proceed


with the bridge. Considering the length of time that it will take the meet the local authorities in negotiations and for the engineers to prepare their scheme for bores and tests and other preliminary work to be undertaken, we are deeply disappointed at the answer that we have received this week and the discouraging attitude of the Government respecting this project.
The construction of the bridge would provide a large amount of work. There would be the approach roads, and then there is the question of the amount of steel that would be required. My right hon. Friend has stressed the point in regard to the steel industry. It is absolutely essential that so far as that trade is concerned local authorities should, whenever possible, promote schemes which would embody a certain amount of steel. It is important that that should be done for the purpose of helping the iron and steel industry. The projected bridge would be one of the most important connections between the North and the South and would provide a dual Great North Road connection. It may be said that this proposal would not meet the immediate position in the steel trade due to the recession of trade in steel. That may be true, because it would take us perhaps two years to carry through the preliminary negotiations, but the whole of the steel trade, the employers and the workmen, and the whole of the local authorities stand behind us in the demand for this bridge, so that they may look forward to the time when the steel trade will be helped very considerably because of the large amount of steel that would be required in its construction.
I should like to draw attention to the recession that has taken place in the iron and steel trade and to ask what steps, if any, the Government are taking to safeguard the interests of those who are almost entirely dependent upon this great basic industry for their livelihood. Hon. Members must be seriously perturbed at the increased unemployment in constituencies where this great industry is situated. In my own division I find that in this industry men are on short time, mills do not know how to keep going, blast furnaces are being blown out, and unemployment is increasing in one of the centres of this great industry, which is considered to he one of the most prosperous areas in the United Kingdom.

There is a shortage of orders in every branch of the steel trade, and the people engaged in the industry, employers and workmen, are looking to the future with a good deal of anxiety as to what will finally happen to it.
I do not know whether it is the high price of steel that is having this adverse effect on the trade; if so, can it not be remedied in some way. What do we find? As my right hon. Friend has stated, British shipowners are being driven from our own shipbuilding centres to place their orders in foreign countries, thereby making the shipbuilding industry in other countries prosperous while our own is lacking work. We are informed that British shipowners have placed in foreign yards, mostly German, orders for new ships to the value of not less than £5,000,000. Strangest thing of all, British shipowners have placed orders for £1,000,000 worth of shipping in Chinese yards, while in this country the shipbuilding industry and the steel industry are looking to the future with anxiety. It is a serious matter that shipowners are being driven by high prices to place their orders in foreign yards to the detriment of our own employers and employés and to the advantage of foreign shipbuilding masters and foreign workmen. In 1930 our export of ships represented in value not less than £19,000,000.
We are told that the recession from which the iron and steel industry is suffering is due to world conditions. As a matter of fact it is the reverse. For instance, Poland and Russia are increasing their output of iron and steel tremendously. Like hon. Members opposite, I am not altogether enamoured of the methods of the Russian Government, but I am bound to say that the progress they have made in regard to their iron and steel industry has been marvellous, while we have been suffering a recession, and while we have been suffering from a decline in our pig iron industry, Poland has nearly doubled her output of pig iron.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Since when?

Mr. Quibell: I will give the figures to the right hon. Gentleman a little later. It is a fact that there has been a tremendous increase in the production of pig iron in Poland; the output has been nearly doubled. On the other hand, 37


blast furnaces have gone out of blast in this country and a large number of those that are continuing in blast are going on slow blast, or what we call slack blast, which restricts output, and that in its turn reduces automatically the wages of those engaged in that great industry. Yet the Government sit down and, as far as I can understand, leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, composed as it is of employers in the iron and steel trade, who have mishandled, misjudged, or miscalculated the conditions of the world and this country very badly. In my own district we have been melting French pig iron and blowing our own furnaces out. As far as the Import Duties Advisory Committee is concerned the present position shows how dangerous it is to put this question into the hands of employers. They have made recommendations which have been accepted, and have put men out of work. They are men who are supposed to know their business, but they have imported pig iron to such an extent that it has destroyed at least 25 per cent. of the pig iron trade of this country and, as I have said, 37 blast furnaces have gone out of blast since last November.
We have always been told by hon. Members opposite that the purpose of a tariff is to keep British workmen at work and to retain the home market for the home producer, but in this case it has meant men being put out of work, and so far as the iron trade is concerned we are constantly receiving letters of a very discouraging character indeed from leaders in the trade union movement connected with the blast furnace men's associations. They are anxious because their men are being daily put out of work. The same thing applies to the steel trade. My right hon. Friend has referred to the meeting of the Richard Thomas Company. I can picture the meeting which is described in to-day's paper, where a representative of the steel trade met a representative of the bankers. The banker said, "Yes, what is it you want?" A north Lincolnshire friend of mine who went to the banker for an overdraft was asked the same question, and he said, "How much have you got?" In this case it was very nearly approaching that.
The banker said, "What do you propose to do in these steelworks? What capacity is it." The answer was "They will be the finest steel works ever put down, the last word in mechanisation and rationalisation and their output as far as sheets and steel sheets are concerned will be sufficient to supply the whole of the home market." "Wonderful," said the banker, "and you want me to help you. Do you know that already I am committed and my customers are in this matter? I and my customers hold shares in companies which will be closed down, and the shares of no value whatever if these works operate to full capacity, and these shares are held as securities for overdrafts, and if you operate to full capacity you are going to help one distressed area but, by heavens, you are going to create five more. If you are allowed to complete this work in order to help this distressed area I must be on the board to see that the interests of other steel works and our own, are safeguarded. Secondly, you must have a director of the Lancashire steel company on the board to see that you do not work at full capacity or undersell other manufacturers and, in the third place, we must put an accountant on the board to see that you do not recklessly spend the money which we propose to lend you."
This is the condition of the steel trade, and while this particular firm which is encouraged to go ahead for the purpose of solving the difficulties of a distressed area, will put 1,000 men in work, it will at the same time put 4,000 men out of work in other steel works. In my own district extensions are taking place to put down the most modern plant that you can find in the world. A statement was made by the Ministry of Labour about a fortnight ago in which he said that all evidence hitherto had proved that machinery and inventions had always increased employment, but I will wager—no, I am not allowed to do so, as this is not a place within the meaning of the Act—that if these steel works, these great blast furnaces, are put down they will turn out an increasing amount of iron with less human labour employed in its production than has been engaged hitherto. Every time there has been improvement or rationalisation in the steel trade, it has meant putting thousands of men out of work, even at a time which is called a real boom in trade. To-day in the iron


and steel trade men are being put out of work because of these developments, and while we are extending steel works and spending money on modern plant there are no markets available for the products of the steel works which are now operating.
Last year in one annual report it was said that they were operating only to the extent of 50 per cent. of capacity, and yet we are building another huge steel works which will increase the power to produce when there are no markets for the product. This is a matter as much for the workmen and the Government as it is for the employers. We look with considerable anxiety to the prospects of unemployment in this great industry when these great steel works and modern extensions do operate. While they will put some men in work it means that they will put more men out of work in other plants which are probably out of date; and you have solved no problem.
The Prime Minister has said that the Government do not share the view expressed in some quarters that there was anything like a slump. It is now called a recession. Had we been on the Government side and the Government on this side I know what would have happened. We should have been reminded time after time that there was a recession, that there was something like a 25 per cent. drop in the steel trade as compared with 1937. The Government have sent out circulars to local authorities to prepare a five-year programme in order to mitigate the evils of unemployment, and to prepare schemes of work which will absorb them. We have put up schemes to the Government such as the Humber Bridge, the Severn Bridge and the Forth Bridge. They are a five-year programme, and are works which if carried out would help to develop this country. I ask the Minister of Transport to try again and see whether he can induce his colleagues to allow him to proceed with some of these schemes and spend a bit of money in developing this country of ours. If he does, we shall be very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman, and he will have done a fine piece of constructive work for this country.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I think it would be convenient to the House if I intervened now to answer the speech of the right hon.

Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), as I understand that several other hon. Members wish to deal with the question of bridges, which is a matter that properly concerns my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who will reply to those speeches. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough said, we have during the summer had several Debates on the general economic situation, and in those Debates I have endeavoured to put before hon. Members the situation, as I saw it, as frankly and in as great detail as was possible. Therefore, I do not propose to-day, when there is a number of subjects to be discussed and a number of hon. Members wish to speak on different topics, to repeat the more general statements that I have made in the past, but I wish to add a little which will bring more up-to-date some of the views which I have expressed.
First of all, the right hon. Gentleman referred at some length to the adverse balance of trade, which, of course, is a matter that must give the Government cause for constant and anxious attention. The right hon. Gentleman will realise—although I am not sure that the public generally realises—that the course of overseas trade has altered completely as between the first and second quarters of the year. Whereas during the first quarter of the year there was a monthly increase in the adverse balance of visible trade as compared with the year before, in the three months of the second quarter the adverse visible balance of trade has month by month been lower than a year ago. Although the fall has not yet been sufficient in the second quarter to make up for the increase in the first quarter, yet the tendency now is towards improvement, at any rate in the visible balance of trade.
Before coming to the main topic which the right hon. Gentleman discussed, namely, the Anglo-American Agreement, the right hon. Gentleman referred to one or two other matters. He dealt with the question of the iron and steel trade, in which he has been followed by the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), who desired the building of bridges not only as a matter of transport but also as a relief to the trade. The hon. Member himself was the first to point out that, in fact, such relief as that could give would be


postponed for a period of two or three years, and I think I am right in saying that, to a large extent, the kind of steel that would be required for these bridges is not the product of that section of the industry which is suffering most to-day. What would be required for these bridges would be largely heavy constructional steel, which so far, at any rate, has not experienced to anything like the same extent the recession which has been experienced by the lighter sections of the trade. In fact, from all the reports I have had, the heavy sections are still working full time, although it is true that there is same falling off in their order books and that the prospects for the future are less certain.

Mr. Latham: I am sure the right lion. Gentleman would not desire to base any statement upon misinformation. I happen to have information from Sheffield to the effect that all the rolling mills which are producing precisely the heavy product to which he has referred, with two exceptions, are on short time, and that some of them are working only three days a week. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that deserves most serious consideration.

Mr. Stanley: As hon. Members probably know, on Wednesday of every week the "Times" publishes an iron and steel report. No one can blame the Government for its publication or complain that it is over-optimistic because of Government influence; it is an entirely independent report on the steel trade. I am sure that hon. Members will have been glad to see that a much more favourable account was given, at any rate for the future, in that report last week than has occurred for many weeks past. It stated:
A more optimistic feeling is in evidence and the inquiry in some departments has become more active. These tendencies point to a revival in business in the early Autumn rather than a broadening in the demand during the holiday period, hut the outlook now is regarded as being more encouraging than at any time since the first part of the year.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough also referred to the Mercantile Marine and in particular to shipbuilding. That, also, is a matter of great concern. Recently, the House debated the position of the Mercantile Marine, and I then expressed the anxiety which the Government felt regarding the state of the

Merchant Navy and their willingness to consider sympathetically any proposals which the shipowners were themselves able to put forward for consideration. I am at the present time in touch with the shipbuilders with regard to the situation that has arisen there. I would also point out—and I hope that my authority will not be challenged, because the information was given to me in connection with the very incident to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, namely, the building of new ships for the Canadian Australian line—that as a matter of fact the rise in the cost of shipbuilding is due only in a very small part to the rise in the cost of steel and that a very large proportion indeed of the increased cost is due to the rise in wage costs in the shipbuilding and subsidiary industries.
The main part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted not to specific instances, but to a general discussion of our foreign trade and the prospects of and the difficulties that face our export trade. I was extremely surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman at one moment praise the van Zeeland Report and at another moment say that what this country wanted was a three-decker tariff. A three-decker tariff would mean the abandonment of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. The right hon. Gentleman, who has studied the van Zeeland Report, knows that M. van Zeeland was not in favour of the abandonment of that Clause, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who has very great knowledge on these matters of foreign trade, knows the very great disadvantages which might well follow to the foreign trade of this country from the abandonment of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause.

Mr. Alexander: I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me, but I would point out that at the opening of that part of my speech I said that I am against all tariffs. I went on to say that if the Government were led to consider the suggestions of the Federation of British Industries for a three-decker tariff, that could not be regarded as good without the concessions I mentioned.

Mr. Stanley: If there were no tariffs, there would be no three-decker tariff, and no necessity for the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, in so far as tariffs exist,


attaches importance to the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. But I understand that the main object of raising this Debate was to inquire about the progress of the trade negotiations with the United States. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman seriously expected that I should answer the sort of question which he put to me, or give him the sort of information which he indicated he desired.

Mr. Alexander: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will.

Mr. Stanley: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman wants a treaty or whether he does not. I believe he is one who genuinely desires it, as I do, but I wonder whether he really thinks that negotiations for a trade treaty are assisted by both sides publicly in their respective countries stating from time to time exactly what they are discussing, what their difficulties are and what their agreement is. I have no knowledge of any trade treaty or any other treaty which has ever been negotiated in those circumstances, and I cannot imagine that it is a way of negotiating which is very likely to meet with success. Nor can I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's repetition of some of the remarks which have appeared in the Press as to the attitude which may have been taken up on particular subjects, either by the Government of the United States or by this Government. The right hon. Gentleman must not fall into error. He must not, too easily, be led to believe that everything that appears in the capitalist Press is necessarily true.
It is impossible for me to go further today than to repeat the statement which was made by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the week. It is true that people may have been rendered anxious by the delay in the negotiations, but I would point out that the last treaty which the United States Government negotiated was one with Czechoslovakia, and from the day on which notice was given of the intention to proceed, to the day of the signature of that treaty was nearly six months. We have now occupied only a few weeks longer than that period, and I would ask the House to compare the difficulty of negotiations between Czechoslovakia and the United States, with the difficulty of negotiations between this country and the United States, with all the complications of the Dominions and the Colonial Empire as well. I hope the House will realise that for a matter of this

complexity no undue length of time has been taken. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the statements made by Mr. Cordell Hull to the Press after the Prime Minister's speech. I can assure him that it is the very strong and anxious desire of his Majesty's Government to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion, and to obtain as a result a treaty which will be fair to both parties and will lead to the expansion of the trade between the two countries and which may be, perhaps, the first step to an increased expansion of trade elsewhere in the world as well.
The right hon. Gentleman said we had done more than anyone else to restrict world trade. To start with, I am not sure that, even if that statement were true, it presents a fair picture to the world to select a period when everybody else had done their worst, when everybody else had done all that it was possible to do in the way of restricting trade, and then to say that, in the six years after that, we had done more than the others had done. But the statement, of course, is based on a pure fallacy. In the first place, this country has never embarked upon those things which M. van Zeeland rightly points out as being the most restrictive actions of all, such things as currency restrictions and quotas on industrial goods. Secondly, that sort of statement is entirely inconsistent with the opening of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He then pointed to our increased adverse balance of trade, an increase which is due almost entirely to the very large increase in imports. But how could it be said, at a time like last year, when we took, I think, more imports than we ever took before, that we had been the worst offenders in the way of restricting our market to international trade?

Mr. Alexander: May I point out in regard to the adverse balance of trade, that we have a worse balance to-day than we had in 1931 when we had practically no protective tariffs and that the adverse balance of trade is affected just as much by the position of our export trade as by that of our import trade.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from it like that. If he analyses the figures he will see that last year we had an enormous increase in imports. They reached a figure in advance of any which we have ever had, and, in


face of those actual results, it is impossible to pretend that we have been in these last few years, as he says, the worst offenders in the way of restriction of international trade.
Finally, I wish to deal with one question which the right hon. Gentleman put with regard to the Memorandum on the Anglo-Australian conversations. He was anxious to know the meaning of the reference in paragraph 9 to the effect that we were prepared not to press our objection to the interpretation now placed by the Australian Tariff Board upon Article 10. He wanted to know whether that meant some worsening of the position of our manufacturers. It does not. It means that while the examination of the possibilities of maximum duties as a substitute for these Tariff Board clauses, is being carried out, the status quo will be maintained. This interpretation was put upon these Articles by the Tariff Board I think some three years ago and they will be interpreted, during the period of investigation, in the same way as they have been interpreted for the last three years.
It is because of difficulties of that kind that the United Kingdom Delegation were so glad to receive the assurance of the Australian Delegation that they would investigate the possibilities of the alternative form of trade treaty, the much more usual form of trade treaty, which is that of a schedule of maximum duties. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that, whereas, at Ottawa, Canada entered into an agreement of the same type as the existing agreement with Australia, in a revision of that agreement last year she adopted to a very large extent the system of maximum duties, and that, I think, has led to great convenience of trade between the two countries. For that reason, the Government attach great importance to the promise of the Australian Ministers to investigate the possibility of such an arrangement in their case.

BRIDGE SCHEMES.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I want to raise the question of the building of three projected bridges, and more particularly of the building of the Severn Bridge. There was great disappointment this week when we got the announcement from the Government

that it is not their intention to build these bridges. We have been looking forward for some years to the building of the Severn Bridge. There is general agreement as to the need for it, and during the last week, since we received the announcement of the Government's decision, there has been something in the nature of consternation on the part of the people, not only in Wales, but in the West of England as well, at that decision I am very astonished that the decision should have been given, because on a number of occasions statements have been made by substantial authorities as to the need for the bridge. The President of the Industrial Commission said:
I share the view of my predecessor that the construction of a bridge over the Severn is a project of major importance for the industrial development of South Wales.
He went on to say that he would regard it as being a project which, if carried out, would give substantial importance to South Wales. In addition to that, Mr. Palmer, a representative of the Board of Trade, giving evidence before the Royal Commission on the geographical distribution of the industrial population, said, in reply to a question put to him by Mr. Ernest Bevin:
Yes, I think there cannot be any doubt that it would have an effect on the development of South Wales. Transport, and easy transport, is, I think, a very important factor in a business man's mind when he is considering sites for his works.
South Wales has been prejudiced for a long time because of bad business communications, and I want to call attention to the experience that we had during the late war, when, owing to the bottle-neck of the Severn Tunnel, it was next to impossible to get the amount of coal and other things through the tunnel that were made necessary by the war. A committee was formed, and it tried in every way to meet the difficulties. There were joint committees between the coalowners and the railway people, but all the time there was considerable congestion, and hundreds of thousands of tons of Welsh coal had, during the war, to be diverted and carried hundreds of miles more than would otherwise would have been necessary because of the congestion there. That was in the last war. Nobody wants a next war, but if one should come, the problem would be infinitely more difficult than it was on the last occasion.
The Government have spent and are spending a substantial amount of money in Wales. Wales is regarded, I suppose, as being one of the safest places in this country should a future war arise. Quite near to the Severn Tunnel, at Caerwent, they propose to erect a cordite factory; only six miles away they propose to build a railway, quite near the Severn Tunnel, to that factory, and they are going to spend, we understand, a very considerable sum of money for that purpose. A few miles away again, at a place called Glascoed, they are already preparing and working at the building of a shell-filling factory, and it is said that they propose to spend £1,500,000 on it, and not only do they propose to do that, but they are going to have a dump for munitions driven into the hills. That is in Monmouthshire. You go further West and come to St. Athens, and there we are spending a substantial sum of money again in connection with munitions works. At Bridgend it is said that we are spending about £2,000,000, and if you go further West still, to Burry Port, there you have more money being spent.
Having regard to the difficulties that existed during the last war, what would be the difficulties if a war should happen in the future and we had to convey those munitions from South Wales through the Severn Tunnel? It would be a very substantial difficulty. There is a further
point. We have a Commission sitting now, I believe, considering such things as evacuation of the population from certain areas. I suppose that if the necessity did arise for evacuating 2,500,000 or 3,000,000 people from Greater London, they would have to go West, and one could understand the congestion and difficulties that would arise in consequence of this lack of transport facilities. I think it is of importance that we should make South Wales a bigger economic unit. There is the possibility, by the building of this bridge, of linking-up South Wales with the South West of England. Let me try to indicate what difference it would make to industry. The difference in distance from Cardiff would be 52 miles less if a bridge were built, and the same applies to Exeter and other towns round, with which a substantial trade might be carried out.
Personally, I am very disappointed that the Government gave this decision. It seems to me that the Severn Bridge could be shown to be an absolute necessity

if only on the ground of strategy, having regard to the development that is taking place in these areas at present. If the Government are not concerned about trade, they certainly ought to be concerned about the defences of this country. I hope that, despite the answer which the Minister of Transport gave last week, he will give us a different reply concerning these bridges to-day. There is every reason, it seems to me, on the ground of the improvement of trade and on the ground of strategy, for the Government to reverse their decision. The Minister knows as well as I know that a project of this kind cannot be undertaken immediately. A long period would be necessary for preparation, and it may be that two years would be required before we could get to the actual building of the bridge, but if the local authorities were informed by the Government that they would not offer any opposition, but that, on the contrary, they would undertake to give substantial grants in connection with it, I know that those local authorities would be very glad indeed to proceed immediately with the preparation of the scheme. I hope that we shall have a reply from the Minister that will be favourable.

1.32 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I want to take the opportunity, very briefly, of making reference to the disappointment that is felt at the statement of the Minister of Transport on Wednesday with regard to the three bridges that have been projected for a considerable time, though my remarks will be devoted exclusively to the question of the proposed Forth road bridge. I do not think I need spend my time in indulging in strong criticism of the Minister, because he will be made aware during the next few weeks, even if the House is in Recess and himself on holiday, of the indignation and disappointment that are felt in Scotland with regard to the decision of the Government not to proceed with the Forth road bridge, not to give, under the present circumstances, as I think the answer put it, the financial support that is necessary to carry through this great project. It would be wrong in any case to criticise unduly the Minister of Transport himself, for obviously this is a decision that is the result of the collective consideration of the whole Government.
When we raise this question, there are some who might say, "But other Governments have dealt with this matter," and indeed the last Labour Government, when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) was Minister of Transport, also refused to proceed at that time with the giving of the necessary financial support to enable this bridge to be built. The position has changed vastly since my right hon. Friend was Minister of Transport in the last Labour Government. At that time the project which was put forward was for a bridge on another site, and it was estimated to cost twice the amount of the estimated cost of the present project. At that time, also, the engineering difficulties had not been settled. Now the Mackintosh Rock site near Queensferry has been agreed to be the best site for the bridge. At that time the local authorities had not agreed on the contributions they might make, and my right hon. Friend was faced with the position of giving a grant of £6,000,000, while all that he had in the way of promised financial support from local authority sources was somewhere in the region of 22½ per cent. Obviously, he was justified at that time in asking the local authorities to get together and in asking that the engineering problems should be solved, and that some effort should be made to bring forward a scheme at a lower cost.
The position since that time has been taken in hand by the Forth Road Bridge Promotion Committee, an influential body that has worked very hard and has had frequent contacts with Ministers of Transport. I understand that they have satisfied those in control that the proposal they make now is a sound one. The engineering difficulties have been got rid of and the local authorities are agreed. Now, when they have been looking forward to a favourable decision by the Government, they are told that it cannot yet be given. The local authorities have been encouraged to spend a certain amount of money, and they are at present spending £1,000 a year in preparatory work under the promise of the Government that if and when a favourable decision is made, this preliminary expenditure will rank for grant.
The best thing I can do is to give the Minister an opportunity of clearing away

any misconception there may be in the minds of those who have heard the decision of the Government with a great deal of perturbation. I will, therefore, ask him the specific question: When is it intended that this matter shall be reconsidered with the idea of giving a favourable decision? I would like to ask, also, whether there has been any objection by the Admiralty to the proposed site of the new bridge? Near the site there is the naval base of Rosyth, and it is conceivable that the Admiralty may have some views on the placing of the bridge at this point. I ask the Minister to realise the disappointment that has been caused by his statement and to accept as the view of many people besides myself that this link in the road system of Scotland is one that is necessary and that will have to come in time. It is, therefore, the duty of the Government to forward the scheme instead of damping it down as they are doing. This bridge will form a link in the road system of Scotland in a properly co-ordinated transport scheme under, I hope, national control, and the Government are missing a big opportunity and causing a great amount of disappointment with regard to an import project that should have their support now. I would like to know when we are likely to have a favourable decision.

1.41 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: My hon.
Friends, each speaking for their own constituencies, have urged the claims of the three bridges—my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) of the Humber Bridge, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins), of the Severn Bridge, and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), of the Forth Bridge. Though my interests are primarily in the last named bridge, I do not propose to cover again the ground which has been covered by these separate hon. Members. I rather want to address myself to the larger issue on which, I have no doubt, the Government have come to their decision. I want to say at the outset that I regard it not merely as regrettable, but as unsound. Having occupied a position at the Treasury, I always come to the House with a predilection in favour of the Treasury point of view. Often when Members in different parts of the House have opposed actions taken by the Treasury I have found it in


my heart to support what the Treasury have done. I certainly cannot do that, however, in what has been done in this case. I consider not merely that it is unsound, but that there is at the back of the minds of those who have come to this decision a confusion between finance and economics.
This question was to the front in the days of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor at the Ministry of Transport. At that time the position was that the rearmament programme was at its outset and there was definitely a shortage of steel, so much so that the price rapidly rose. Those who wished to use steel for domestic purposes had great difficulty in obtaining their requirements because the Government, having set out on this great additional programme for which steel was required, competed against the private persons who desired steel for other construction. Much as I regretted the decision of the Government at that time that the Forth and the other bridges must be postponed, I understood and appreciated it. I think that if I had been in the position of a Member of the Government who had to make the decision I should have come to the same conclusion as they did. The position is wholly different to-day. There is no question of a shortage of steel —quite the reverse. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg, what we knew before, that there is a definite shortage of work in the iron and steel trade and that large additional orders such as these bridges would involve would help to cure that unemployment when the orders for steel got going. Therefore, the situation is wholly different from what it was at the time when this question was adversely decided 12 months or more ago.
There is no doubt that there would be an economic advantage to the nation in building these bridges. The Forth Bridge, for example, very much shortens the distance from the south to the north of the island; it would facilitate traffic, it would greatly improve the means of communication, and to build the bridge would increase the economic productivity and industrial prosperity of the nation. I share the views of the hon. Member for Pontypool about the strategic advantage of these bridges. There is no doubt that in time of war, if war unfortunately should arrive, we shall want to get about the country in the quickest available time.

The railways will be strained to the uttermost, and we shall require the best means of transport in every direction, and we cannot possibly tell in what direction the need for increased and improved transport will arise. Then there is the benefit to employment. Unhappily, there is a recession of trade which is increasing the numbers of the unemployed very rapidly. I should have supposed that the Government would be anxious to do everything in their power to prevent the numbers of the unemployed getting out of hand. Finally, there is the question of prestige. I should have thought that the Government would have wished to show that the rearmament programme was not straining the resources of the country to the utmost, and this decision not to build the bridges on the ground of the financial expenditure upon armaments may be very deleterious to our prestige in foreign countries.
When all these facts have been taken into account I should have thought that it would be seen that the actual strain on the Exchequer had shrunk to such small proportions that it ought not to have weighted the balance against these larger considerations. Finance should be the handmaid of economics. The economic position of this country demands the provision of these bridges, whether from the point of view of the advantages to the industrial life of the nation, the wealth of the nation, or employment. Where economics demand, finance should find a way, and I venture to say that if, instead of being a country dependent upon the capitalist system of industry, we were on the community basis in industrial life, the present decision would not have been taken.
I can quite understand that any Minister of Transport in deciding such questions would be most anxious that the work should proceed, but he is faced with a Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Treasury equally anxious not to spend one penny which they can possibly avoid spending, and the Minister will, no doubt, have a difficult task to-day to expound what is, in a sense, Treasury policy, and is against the policy which he himself would like to adopt. At the same time he must not ride off on that, either from the constitutional point of view or any other. I remember that once a distinguished Parliamentarian was being spoken to by a Cabinet Minister, who was entitled to


make the remark he did. The Minister said "I did everything I could to try to get the opposite decision taken." His friends said "Did you threaten to resign if effect was not given to your wish? Did you hold your office in your hand and say "Either this decision is taken or I go'?" The Minister said "I did not." "Then," said his friend, "you did not take every step that was open to you to gain your way when you thought it was right."

1.50 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman, in his concluding words, is asking for a bridge or for my resignation; but I will come to the subject under discussion. When, a few days ago, in answer to a question, I had to announce that the financial resources of the country must be concentrated upon its most urgent requirements, particularly upon defensive rearmament, and that the Government were unable in the present circumstances to offer contributions towards the cost of these bridges, it was inevitable that disappointment would be caused in the neighbourhoods of the great tidal estuaries which these bridges are to span. I understood that perfectly well, and I think it is an advantage to have the opportunity provided by the Adjournment Motion to say a few words about the matter. I am not sure whether anybody reading the Debate this morning might not draw wrong conclusions. There is a great deal of history about each of these major bridge proposals. None of them is free from controversy. They are not agreed proposals. Neither the place of the bridge, nor the type of bridge, nor the effect upon navigation, has yet finally been agreed in the case of any one of the three bridges. In the case of the Humber and the Severn attempts to secure Parliamentary approval have failed, though I put that on one side, because that has really nothing to do with the position as we find it this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) raised the question of the Humber Bridge to introduce a speech on the condition of the iron and steel industry. Again I do not want to score a false point, but the House may just as well have the figures. The total of the steelwork in all three bridges, if the orders to build them

were given to-morrow, would be about half a week's output, so that to speak of the building of these three bridges as a substantial contribution to the prosperity of the iron and steel trade is just nonsense. The other speeches have raised more detailed matters relating to the bridges. The order in which these bridges have been referred to for some time past has been—the Severn, the Forth and the Humber. If hon. Members will look at the answers to questions and Government pronouncements made from time to time they will find that that is the order in which the matters have been states.
With regard to the Severn Bridge, a bridge on the west coast, a bridge which would link Wales to south-west England, it might be possible to find arguments which differ from those applicable to the Forth and the Humber. I say that it might be, for I am in this difficulty, that the proposal to build the Severn Bridge, when dealt with in a Bill before this House, was rejected. The site of the bridge is in controversy, the type of construction is in controversy, the effect upon navigation is in controversy. If agreement were reached between the parties as to the site at which a bridge could be thrown across the Severn, and if the navigational interests agreed also that a bridge on that site might be of advantage to the country, I certainly should be prepared to reexamine the proposal. For the moment, I have been obliged to say that at a time of intensive rearmament and with a Budget of the order of £1,000,000,000 a year, it is not possible to contribute from Government sources to those projects, as immediate propositions.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Assuming that the propositions referred to were agreed to under those three heads, could those who are advocating the construction of a Severn Bridge look to the Minister of Transport for an early and favourable response in the matter?

Mr. Burgin: I do not want the hon. Member to go too fast. Until I heard some of the speeches in this Debate I did not know that anybody expected that any one of these three bridges was to be built immediately.

Mr. Davies: Oh, yes.

Mr. Burgin: I had not expected that. There must be property acquisition, parliamentary powers by the promotion of a


Bill and a very great deal of preliminary work. I think that a certain amount of confusion has crept into the Debate today between what is involved in the preliminary work, a relatively small matter, and the decision to construct the bridge, which is a major decision.

Mr. Davies: Sanctions must be obtained.

Mr. Burgin: There can be no title to build a bridge over a tidal estuary other than by law. As this matter involves interference with navigational rights, nothing but an Act of Parliament is applicable.

Mr. Jenkins: If the points of difference can be disposed of, does the Minister say that he will then take no exception to local authorities' commencing the preliminary work at the present time? If we can get an undertaking from him that that work may be proceeded with and that, at the end of the two or more years that may be necessary to carry it out, the scheme would rank for grant, we may be within the region of a practical proposition.

Mr. Burgin: I wish to be perfectly frank with the hon. Member. I have received deputations in regard to all these bridges, but at the moment I am talking of the proposed Severn Bridge. Deputations have been evenly divided; there have been deputations in favour of the proposal and others in favour of its opponents. I am therefore dealing with a somewhat hypothetical question. I gave an answer in the House two days ago that, in the present circumstances, there could not be a contribution from the national Exchequer towards these projects. What I am telling the hon. Member, and through him the House and the country, is that if the circumstances relating to the Severn Bridge were quite different from what they are to-day and if there were agreement as to the site, as to the type of bridge and with the navigational interests, I should be prepared to go beyond this answer. I should be prepared to re-examine the matter. Those who might put the matter forward again would have to work out very clearly in their minds what precisely they were asking for. There can be no question of giving approval to the construction of any major works of this kind at the present time.

Mr. Jenkins: I am not saying that we can get absolute agreement in any of those directions, but, if a substantial measure of agreement were reached and a Parliamentary Bill were promoted, I understand that the Minister would look upon it and the proposition favourably.

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member cannot anticipate what opposition there would be or would not be to a proposal which I have not seen. What I am saying is that I would be prepared to re-open the answer which I gave a few days ago, if conditions altered and a proposal were put forward on the lines which I have sketched out. The case of a major bridge might possibly be considered on the West Coast, where conditions differ from those of the two proposals on the East Coast,
With regard to the two bridges over the Forth and the Humber respectively, the position must stand, for the moment, in the way in which I announced it in the House. In the present conditions and circumstances, and with the present demands upon the national resources for rearmament, it is not possible to give grants from national funds for the construction of those bridges, and I cannot, with the best will in the world, take the matter further than that, in answer to the speeches which have been made.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman class the Forth Bridge proposal as one of the projects in relation to which the site has not been agreed to?

Mr. Burgin: Yes.

Mr. Mathers: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better amend that statement. I think he must know that the site has been agreed upon by all the interests concerned.

Mr. Burgin: I do not want to go into the details of the matter but I am well aware of the proposals for the Mackintosh Rock site; but there is a strong body of opinion pressing for another site, even at the present time. I am in very close touch with the proposals for this project. I have visited the sites, and I have studied the matter in detail, and it would be misleading the House to suggest that there is no other proposal than the Mackintosh Rock site proposal.

Mr. Mathers: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my specific question about the Admiralty opinion.

Mr. Burgin: Any matter relating to the Admiralty had no bearing upon the decision which I announced to the House.

REFUGEES.

2.3 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: My sympathies are with the hon. Members above the Gangway who have raised this interesting discussion about bridges, in the light of the problems of unemployment and transport. I wish to switch the discussion for a short time to the delicate and difficult problem of refugees. The matter came to a head in what has come to be known as the Vichy Conference. I would take the opportunity to congratulate the Noble Lord upon the great opportunity that has been afforded to him. He is one of the oldest Members of the House and he has had years of service, dating back I know not how many years, as a private Member of this House. At last he has achieved the coveted position of membership of the Cabinet, but I think he will be the first to agree that the position of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not offer great opportunities for him to show his administrative abilities. I am glad that he has had a chance to exercise his powers in what has come to be the great international conference that recently concluded. From all that I hear, he acquitted himself with skill, and gained the confidence and respect of all the countries that were there represented.
He will, however, be the first to recognise that the real success of the conference is largely due to the fact that it was initiated by the appeal of President Roosevelt; the fact that there was an important delegation from America was probably the best guarantee of something fruitful coming out of its long deliberations. We know the good will of the great American people. They are a long way off from our difficult and delicate European problems, but the fact that they were present to give a tone of impartiality is, I think my right hon. Friend will agree, the most likely assurance that something really practical and effective will come out of these deliberations. It was a great thing to get the representatives of 30 nations sitting round a table. It is true that it was not under the auspices of the League, but we are not going to be too critical of that. We have to be realists in these days, and it was

perhaps quite worth while to get round the back of the League if it meant the presence of the United States of America. It is evidence of the common humanity of the civilised world when 30 nations can discuss, not any particular interest, but the common cause of humanity and generous mercy.
I am not going to say harsh words this afternoon about the German people; I think that the very last way to get things done is to stir up bitterness and bad feeling more than is absolutely necessary. I admit that I am unable to understand the psychology. I will not say of the German people, but of the present German Government. It is incomprehensible to us that they can keep in a prison camp such a distinguished ex-naval officer as Pastor NiemÖller; nor can we understand the glorification of the murderers of Dollfuss and their treatment as martyrs, or why a powerful people of some 70,000,000 should develop a cult of persecuting one per cent. of their population. It is incomprehensible to the British people. But we have to be realists, and see how we can by skill do something to ameliorate the condition of those unfortunate people who are suffering so much in Germany to-day. I would suggest that Members of this House and people outside might profitably read the very brilliant speech of the Bishop of Chichester in the House of Lords this week.
Our business at the moment is not to examine causes, but to see how far we can devise remedies, or perhaps, it would be more correct to say palliatives, of the position of these thousands of people who are being driven homeless out of their motherland. What can be done by cooperation was proved in a remarkable way during the first years after the War by the Nansen Committee, and I think, if I may say so, that the spirit which should inspire the Committee that is to be set up should be the spirit of the Nansen tradition. I am not one of those who underrate the difficulties. The difficulties are immense. We have to be realists. We have our own internal problems in the vast figures of unemployment and the horrors of the distressed areas, and other countries, which have great traditions in regard to the right of asylum and helping persons who are suffering from persecution owing to their race or


religious beliefs, have similar problems to meet. That, of course, makes the difficulties very great. Naturally, people in our own country are suspicious of any immigration that may aggravate, in however small a way, some of our unemployment problems, though it is fair and reasonable to say that many of the immigrants who have been admitted to this country by the Home Office and have initiated new industries have been men of scientific or expert knowledge, and I believe that something like 300 new industries have actually been created as a reward for giving the right of asylum to men of distinction and business ability of scientific knowledge.
Let me pay a tribute to the present Home Secretary, who has shown great humanity and wisdom and personal sympathy in the treatment of individual cases. I know from my own experience that he is most accessible and willing to do all he can to help people where he can by his own personal wisdom. But the greatest possibilities of help seem to me to be in those large undeveloped tracts of the British Empire which are hungering for development. We have always boasted that we hold these vast territories, not in order to exploit them for our own selfish ends, but as the trustees of a civilised world. I congratulate the Colonial Office on the practical proposal which has been put forward for making use of Kenya Colony. That, of course, is within the personal powers of our Government, but it distresses some of us to see that more encouragement is not given to making use of the vast territories of Australia. Many Powers are casting hungry eyes on some of those undeveloped lands, and it seems a pity that Australia does not become more sympathetic. I hope she will be represented on the committee that is to be created to deal with this question.
It is clear to me, from the discussions that have taken place and from my knowledge of the whole problem, that the real help lies in agricultural settlement. After all, the Jewish people were originally a pastural nation; they were agriculturists. In recent centuries they have been associated with finance and industry, not always to the improvement of their repute, but they were forced into these channels of earning their living largely because they were denied the right to own land. Palestine has proved that, given the

opportunity and the necessary capital, they can do wonders as practical farmers. They have literally, to use the language of the Bible, produced figs from thistles, and made vineyards out of land that has been desert; and, if given the chance, they will be able at any rate to make a livelihood. But, of course, the financial difficulty stands in the way. The report points out that they must have capital. They cannot expect to raise vast sums to enable them to become agriculturists, in new countries and undeveloped States, without capital resources. The German people in the early days when they were driving out their unfortunate fellow-citizens because of their race or religion, allowed them to take away a reasonable amount of their capital, something like 70 per cent. That has been gradually cut down and now they are being thrust into the world almost penniless on the charity of their neighbours. The "Times", in an excellent leading article the other day, made this pertinent remark:
A policy of merciless confiscation is unworthy of a great country, and the unloading of forced migrants in a destitute condition is an offence against humanity and the community of nations".
The fifth resolution of the Evian Conference—many of these resolutions are excellent both in wording and spirit—said,
If countries of refuge or settlement are to co-operate in finding an orderly solution of the problem before the Committee they should have the collaboration of the country of origin and be therefore persuaded that it will make its contribution by enabling involuntary emigrants to take with them their property and possessions and emigrate in an orderly manner.
The German people value the good will of other countries. They want to belong —they have reiterated that—to the comity of nations. I think they will respond to the appeal that was made to them at this conference at Evian. A new committee is to come into being, I understand, in London, and we are honoured that London has been chosen as its location. But this committee is not to be in any sense a merely British committee. It is to be really representative of the nations which took part in the Evian Conference. I hope that America above all will be closely identified with the work of this committee, and that the initiation of the conference by President Roosevelt will be continued by the active co-operation of America in the work of the new committee.
In conclusion, I would like to impress upon my right hon. Friend the Minister who is identified with this work the importance of the time factor. There has been terrible distress, especially in Vienna, and a whole crop of suicides. The patience of many of the people has been stretched to breaking-point. If the 30 nations assembled at Evian are really to do something constructive, I would impress upon this House and the world outside the importance of speed and of the avoidance of red tape, the importance of tact in tackling the problem and last, but not least, the exercise of that definite imagination that is so necessary if we are to do really constructive work.

2.19 p.m.

Captain Cazalet: Like the last speaker I desire, before the House adjourns, to detain it for a very few minutes in regard to this distressing and terrible problem of refugees from Europe. Some of us had hoped that conditions in regard to Jews in Central Europe would improve, but exactly the reverse has been the case in the last two months and even in the last two weeks. It is quite impossible to exaggerate the situation in which many hundreds of thousands of Jews and others find themselves in Central Europe to-day. Never since Milton immortalised the slaughter of the Albigenses has a whole community been in such danger. I am not going into details of individual persecution and atrocities, but there is every evidence to-day that wholesale indiscriminate arrests of Jews are going on in Vienna with the deliberate intention, I believe, of almost compelling these people to choose suicide as the only way out of their misery. Those who do not choose the happy release of suicide are sent to concentration camps where by hard work totally unsuited to them many of them find what is euphemistically termed a natural death.
I am not suggesting that anyone in this country is complacent about this problem, but I do say that the whole system is so alien to our traditions and habits of thought that it is almost impossible for us to envisage the situation and the circumstances in Germany and Austria to-day. We can all understand one act of cruelty, but what we cannot conceive is a definite official policy that is driving thousands of people to choose suicide as the only release from their

problems. What can be done? Everyone in this country, and I think almost throughout the world, deplores the situation. May I for a moment or two state what is the problem as I see it? I think perhaps it is not always realised that before the War some two or three million emigrants from Central Europe left this Continent and found new homes in the United States of America, in South America and in the British Empire. During the years since the War that migration has ceased, and therefore the problem has become more acute in certain countries in Europe.
The situation in Germany to-day is that there are still about 350,000 people known as "full Jews". About 150,000 have already left. In Austria there are about 150,000 full Jews and only about 15,000 have left. Of that 150,000 to show how pressing is the problem, no fewer than 85,000 have already registered as desiring to find refuge and homes elsewhere. Of that 85,000 some 18,000 are children whose future, if they remain, is an absolute blank. Unfortunately that is by no means the whole problem. There are in addition an incalculable number, given sometimes as 600,000 to 700,000, of what are known as non-Aryans or half Jews—people, at any rate, who are all suffering the same disabilities as the Jews.
If that were the whole of the problem it would not be so bad, but to ignore yet a further aspect of it is really begging the question. There are in the Eastern countries of Europe—Poland, Rumania, Hungary—a number of people, between 3,000,000 and 5,000,000 perhaps, whose condition to-day, of course, is by no means comparable with that of the Jews in Germany—I am not suggesting that—but for whom something will have to be done in the near future. In Poland a very large proportion of the 3,500,000 Jews will never be, and can never be, assimilated to the country of their birth. I am not saying that if the Polish Government took certain measures they would not be able to settle a large number of these in their own land, but, even with good will on the part of the Polish Government, there always will be in Poland a very large number of Jews who will never be assimilated to conditions in Poland, and who, if they are to find a full and freer life, especially the young people, must find it elsewhere.
It is no good allocating the blame between one Government and another, but this is part of the problem we have to solve. In the next two or three years there will be at least 20,000 young Hungarians for whom no jobs will be available in Hungary; and, for the next five or o years at least, the liberal professions will be closed to young Hungarian Jews. Conditions in Rumania are somewhat similar to those in Hungary. That is a very formidable and stupendous problem, facing not only us but the world. The immediate problem is that of the Jews in Germany and Austria, and what can be, and will be, done for them in the near future. The Evian Conference offers no mean help—and may I be allowed to say that the success of that conference was largely due to the very sympathetic attitude taken by the delegate of His Majesty's Government. I would like to endorse what the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said, that the record of the Home Office and the Home Secretary in the matter of refugees is one which we should admire. I have never known a case in regard to refugees where they have allowed red tape to stand in the way of not only the sensible, but the humane thing. I am very glad that the United States are going to take a lead in this conference.
I believe the first thing that that Conference—or the organisation set up by the Conference—has to do is to make a deal with Germany in regard to the possessions —money and property—that the refugees may be allowed take out with them. It is intolerable that people should not only be forced into involuntary exile, but should be robbed of every penny they possess. It is no good asking whether there is any moral justification for what they are doing; what we have to say to them is, "We appreciate that you wish to get rid of some hundreds of thousands of your people. We will help you, but you must always play your part if we play ours. The part you can play is to allow each individual to take a percentage of his property with him." That makes it, for all countries involved in this matter, so much easier to deal with public opinion. I believe that if all the countries will make the contributions they promised to make in their public speeches at Evian, something will be done. No one is more aware than I am of the danger of raising, in this country and elsewhere, anti-Semitic

feeling, unless this question is handled tactfully; but, however successful the results of this Conference may be in the long run, it is only tinkering with the problem. I am not asking the Government to make any declaration on the wider issues to-day.
I perfectly appreciate that the Evian Conference was called for one object; and, indeed, I feel that every refugee who can be got out of Germany through the work of that Conference, is a life saved. But I think everyone who studies this problem realises that, if we are to find a real solution, it must be on a much wider, bigger basis than that of a small infiltration of a few skilled Jews into this country and into a few other countries. We have to find a territory where Jews and non-Aryans can create a community among themselves without disturbing the neighbouring people, where, in the course of the next decade, not a few hundreds but tens of thousands of families can settle and make a life of their own, in the same way as they have done in Palestine—and do not let us underestimate the contribution that Palestine has made to this problem. In the last few years, of the 150,000 Jews who have left Germany, over 40,000 have gone to Palestine. We hope that, in happier times, Palestine will be able once again to make a substantial contribution to the solution of this problem. I am not dogmatic as to where this other territory should be. Zanzibar and other places have been suggested. Personally, I would rather that it was within the confines of the British Empire. It is too difficult for private Members to obtain sufficient facts for them to be able to say where this territory should be; but simply to raise objections and to say it cannot be done is wrong. If you look at the map and see the vast open spaces which still exist in the world, it is obvious that that is not an attitude which would be justified. I am glad to hear that the Government intend and are indeed taking steps to find settlement in a small way—naturally, it must be in a small way to start with—in Central and Eastern Africa.
I recognise that progress towards a scheme of this kind must be slow. Great hardships will be entailed, and it is only by persistent effort and a good deal of courage on the part of the emigrants that success will be possible. It would be a great idea, if you could find a suitable


area, to take from Palestine a certain number of pioneers who know the difficulties, and these could form a nucleus. I do not believe money alone would ever be an obstacle to the success of a scheme of this kind. I am certain you could get the big Jewish firms of the world to guarantee whatever money was necessary to launch such a scheme. To no one who has seen what the Jews have overcome in Palestine would such a scheme seem an impossibility. These people would rather fight tsetse fly and blackwater fever in Central Africa than the Nazi régime in Germany. This may be rather a dream, but we have to lay the foundations so as to make it a reality in the next generation. Just 35 years ago, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain offered to the Jews a home in the neighbourhood of Kenya and Uganda. It may be that in the near future his son will be able to keep this promise, perhaps even somewhere in the same locality. We pride ourselves on being a democracy. I think hardly any of us ever makes a speech in his constituency in which that word does not form an important part of the peroration. We have always been an asylum for the persecuted.

Mr. De Chair: Including Karl Marx and Lenin.

Captain Cazalet: I am for opening our doors as wide as possible, and I do not want to be led astray. We have tolerated in our midst one or two examples even of that kind. I do not think that we have suffered very much internally. We welcomed in days gone by the Huguenots in large numbers, and I do not think that we suffered as a consequence. I do not believe that either this country or the Empire will suffer from extending the open, generous hand to some of the persecuted refugees in central Europe to-day. We pride ourselves upon being a Christian country. It is only in recent years that perhaps we have found it necessary to emphasise that we are a Christian country, and that as a Christian country we take certain views and hold certain ideals. This is not only a Jewish question. It is a Christian question as well. Upon what does Christianity stand? Upon the foundation of charity.

Mr. MacLaren: Upon justice, not charity.

Captain Cazalet: Justice and charity. My interpretation of charity includes justice. There is no real charity without justice. There are in the world to-day a great many people who are strangers, and we should take an interest in them. There are many who are hungry and without homes, and it is our job to feed and to clothe them. I know that up to date our record in this matter compares favourably with that of any other people or nation in the world. We have to-day a magnificent body of voluntary workers, led by certain Quakers, who have already made great contributions, with the assistance of the Government, towards the solution of the more immediate and pressing problems of many thousands of refugees. Much remains, however, to be done, and it is only with the help and assistance of the Government in the future that that work can be accomplished. I am certain that history will condemn violently the acts of commission of many of this generation, but we shall also have to pay the penalty if we, by any act of omission, fail to try and solve this problem. The Government, we all hope, however much we may differ as to the means they employ, will in the next six months or year enable Europe to avoid suffering from the horrors of war. Is it too much to hope that they will be equally successful in mitigating what may be justly termed one of the horrors of peace—the persecution of the Jews in Central Europe?

2.38 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Cox: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) about the notable part played by Governments of this country in past times in assisting weak and small minorities which were being persecuted. The British Governments in the past have always played a very distinguished part in assisting minorities in distress, and I certainly hope that the Government will show, by putting forward constructive suggestions, that they are in a position to assist refugees in Central Europe to-day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the question of the Evian Conference. I do not know that I agree with his statement that the Conference was a great success. I think that we rather have to look forward to its later developments in regard to assisting refugees in Central Europe. The President of the United


States of America has taken a great interest in this question. It is quite clear that he is anxious to assist the Jews and to see that some notable contribution is made. I feel that there is a great future for this matter and I certainly hope that the British Government will be able to assist. I believe that Palestine is able to absorb large numbers of these refugees. I know that it is suggested that is it not possible to absorb large numbers of these refugees in Palestine. The Peel Report recently said, in regard to immigration, that:
The heavy emigration in the years in 1933 and 1936 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the economic absorbtive capacity of the country for the Jews. The process can be continued for some time to come and it would appear that its expansion need only be limited by the amount of funds which Jewish philanthrophy and enterprise are prepared to pour into the country. But such an expansion of the economic absorptive capacity is calculated to lead to a development of the Jewish national home which is not organic but is unnatural.
That shows clearly that there are considerable possibilities of enlarging the economic absorptive capacity of the country, and that it is quite possible for large numbers of Jews to emigrate to that country. I feel that it would be far better if the economic absorptive capacity principle was set up again in place of the present political high level system. The Peel Commission Report makes it very clear that there are vast possibilities of development in Palestine and that it can absorb large numbers of Jews. It speaks of the great progress of industry and agriculture, and mentions the impressive work accomplished by the ardent zeal of the Zionists. To give one or two examples—the remarkable growth of Haifa, which now has a population of something like 100,000. This half-Jewish port serves both Arabs and Jews. Since 1933 the capital invested in industry has increased by 108 per cent., and the value of the output by something like 75 per cent. A remarkable development is taking place, chiefly due to the ability and enterprise of the Jews in many other directions. If 1921 is taken as the basic year, the capital in Jewish industry has increased by more than 1,800 per cent. and the output by more than 1,700 per cent. Great progress is being made in regard to agricultural colonisation and urban development. No fewer than 19 new Jewish settlements were established

last year. The £77,000,000 worth of Jewish investments has greatly helped the trade of the country as a whole, and has benefited both Arabs and Jews.

Mr. Crossley: No Arab would admit that.

Mr. Cox: I do not know that that is actually the case. I think the Palestine Royal Commission makes it abundantly clear that the influence of Jewish immigration and reconstruction work has in the past greatly helped the Arab population. I can give one or two examples by extracts from the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission, which makes that clear. The large import of Jewish capital into Palestine has had a general fructifying effect on the economic life of the country as a whole. The expansion of Arab industry, especially the citrus industry, has been largely financed by the capital thus obtained. Jewish example has done much to improve Arab cultivation, especially in regard to the citrus plantations.

Mr. Crossley: I cannot let that go unchallenged. The depression in the citrus industry is so severe that many thousands of trees are being cut down.

Mr. Cox: That does not detract in any way from the point I was making, that the financing of this industry by the Jews has greatly benefited the Arabs. Owing to Jewish development and enterprise the employment of Arab labour has increased in urban areas, particularly in the ports. I can give one or two other examples which show that the Arabs have very much benefited from the activities of the Jews in Palestine. For example, institutions founded with Jewish funds primarily to serve the National Home have also served the Arab population. My hon. Friend would do well to bear that fact in mind. Hudussah, for example, treats Arab patients, notably at the tuberculosis hospital at Safed, and the Radiology Institute at Jerusalem admits Arab people to the clinics of its rural sick benefit fund, and does much to assist in welfare work for Arab mothers. These simple facts show how entirely baseless is the statement which is so often made and which has been made by my hon. Friend that Arabs do not benefit in Palestine from the activities of the Jews.
I should like to refer to one further point. It has been frequently stated by


Arab leaders that the British Government have not kept faith in their dealings with the Arabs.

Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear. Nor with the Jews.

Mr. Cox: That point was mentioned in the evidence given before the Royal Commission and many times before this. The Arab Higher Committee stated that the faith of the Arabs in the British Government was shaken by the outcome of their efforts in the War, and that the subsequent action of the Government had deepened their mistrust. I think that
statement is entirely untrue. Lord Balfour's reply shows how unjust those remarks were. He said:
Of all the charges made against this country I must say that the charge that we have been unjust to the Arabs seems to me the strangest. It was largely through the expenditure of British blood, by the exercise of British valour and skill and by the conduct of British generals and British troops, brought from all parts of the Empire, that the emancipation of the Arabs from Turkish rule has been brought about. That we, after all the events of the War should be held up as those who have done an injustice, after we have established a King in Mesopotamia, and have done more than has been done for centuries past to put the Arab race in the position to which they have attained, and that we should be charged with being their enemies, and taking a mean advantage of the international situation, seems not only most unjust to this country but almost fantastic in its extravagance.
I do not wish to continue that line of thought, but I would say, in conclusion, that I hope it will be said that we desire to the best of our ability to give to the Jewish people an opportunity to develop in peace and security those great gifts which hitherto they have been compelled to bring to fruition in countries which know not their language and belong not to their race. But, whatever be the decision of the Government on this very delicate and distressing problem, it is to be hoped that peace will be brought to Palestine and that her people will then be forgetful of all ancient animosities and be delivered from the apprehension of future danger.

2.53 P.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I am thankful to the hon. baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) for giving me an opportunity of saying something about this most poignant and

pressing problem which was dealt with at the Inter-Governmental meeting at Evian. This problem requires most careful and delicate treatment if the position of these unfortunate people in their country of origin is not to be made worse. Mere denunciation of those responsible for the condition in which they find themselves will not benefit the people whom we wish to help, and certainly no one could have been more careful in that respect than the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet). I must thank the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green for his most friendly personal references to me and to my colleagues at Evian, and I am also grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), who gave assenting cheers. Such things sweeten the acerbities of political life.
My colleagues and I, in the 10 days that we spent at Evian, did strive to achieve what we believed to be a very considerable measure of success, although it is only the first step in a continuous process. I should like to pay a grateful tribute to the initiative of the President and the Government of the United States of America in this matter and also to the support which was given by the French and the other Government representatives. I think I can in a very few minutes give a resumé of what occurred and what was achieved. We tried to deal with the matters before us in a purely practical way. We aimed at regulated rather that chaotic migration from Germany, and infiltration rather than mass migration. I should make it clear that it was recognised at Evian that the subject under consideration should be confined to the question of refugees from Germany (including Austria) and that it was impracticable to extend it to the question of refugees from other countries.
I must make it clear, although I think it is probably already clear to the House, that we had to consider not only the Jewish minority in Germany. The refugee problem is not confined to the Jews, and it would be unfortunate if that fact were forgotten. It was emphasized at the meeting that infiltration, not mass migration, was the only practical solution of the problem. I should like to say that we had support from many Jewish quarters for this point of view. Furthermore, I should like to pay a tribute to


the moderation, good sense and common sense of the many representatives of Jewish and other refugee organisations with whom I had the honour and pleasure of discussing this question in private.
The reasons for the conference making the recommendations I have described may be briefly stated. We live in an age of intense suspicion, acute nationalism, and every sort of restriction of an economic character. If we recognised that mass-migration was impracticable, it was not because of any anti-Semitism on our part, but rather because we were determined to face the facts. The Dominions and the United States of America were opposed to mass migration from this country to theirs; they will only accept selected immigrants. The days have gone when large masses of people can move from one country to another. In the same way the receiving countries represented at Evian made it clear that they could only take members of the Austrian and German minorities within the limits of their absorptive capacity, but I believe that they will interpret this criterion in a more liberal fashion as the result of our meeting than was the case before. I cannot give actual statistics but I have a strong feeling of hopefulness on that matter.
As regards the United Kingdom, the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the admission of refugees has been frequently explained by the Home Secretary. It may be stated as a middle-course policy. Out attitude is to treat each applicant as sympathetically as possible, but we are of the opinion that there can be no indiscriminate admission. This policy has the support of the private refugee organisations. I should like to add one further point: this is not a party question, and any Government in office must have regard to the state of public opinion. It is largely public opinion which must be the determining factor in the matter. We think that we have as a result of the meeting at Evian done much to focus the eyes of the world on this problem as being urgent and as being one which demands the utmost sympathy of treatment.
Reference has been made to Palestine during the course of the Debate. I should rather deprecate this Debate being treated as a Palestinian Debate. I am concerned with what happened at Evian, and I do not think I need read to the House what

I said on- the subject at Evian when speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and particularly on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. I need only mention the very considerable contribution that Palestine has hitherto made to the question of the absorption of refugee and other Jews. Owing, however, to the particular circumstances of the moment, which we all regret and deeply deplore, it has been necessary to impose certain restrictions.
I think the House would like to hear a word in regard to the future of the Intergovernmental Committee. It will be a continuing Committee, and I ought to say that it will not in any sense be in conflict or in competition with the League of Nations organisation for refugees. I should like to take this opporunity of paying a tribute to the work of Sir Neil Malcolm and to the previous work of Dr. Nansen and his successors as heads of the League refugee services. I think, in vulgar parlance, that we can pat ourselves on the back that at the Evian meeting we reached a unanimous resolution in an atmosphere of good will.
The recommendations of the Committee make it clear that the new continuing body shall work in the closest co-operation with the League organisation for refugees. For obvious reasons it would be impossible for the United States to participate in a purely League organisation, and it would be equally impossible to deal with Germany on that basis, because Germany is not a member of the League. Moreover, when I say that the work of the new continuing Committee will not be in conflict in any way with the work done by the High Commissioner, I should point out that the mandate of the High Commissioner is at present limited to refugees in the strict sense of the term, that is to persons who have already left their country of origin. For political reasons the High Commissioner is not empowered to negotiate with the German Government or to intervene on behalf of persons still in Germany who might desire to emigrate.
I should like to mention at this point that I deprecate any suggestion that any of the countries represented at Evian were not prepared to do their utmost within the limits of their capacity to assist in the solution of this problem. A reference has been made to Australia. I am not entitled


to speak on behalf of Australia, but the impression made on me by the attitude of the distinguished Australian representative, who is also a member of the Australian Government, was not that which the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green suggested, and I have reason to hope and believe that Australia is going to do everything possible to assist towards a solution of the problem.

Commander Locker-Lampson: What about Transjordania? The late Secretary of State said that in Transjordania there is room at once for 100,000 families.

Earl Winterton: I am afraid that is a matter with which I am not competent to deal at the moment. I can only refer to what His Majesty's Government propose to do in the Colonial Empire, and even there, of course, its authority is not absolute. It is a delusion to suppose that in the case of the Colonial Empire His Majesty's Government can act without regard to the opinion of the white settlers and also to the opinion of the native population.

Commander Locker-Lampson: TransJordania is relatively empty.

Earl Winterton: I am afraid that I cannot say any more on that question.
I think we should recognise and realise the intense interest in this question of the Government and the people of the United States of America. The House will agree with me, I am sure, that the well of sympathy of the people of the United States with human problems is very deep. We recollect what was done for refugees after the War through the agency of Mr. Hoover. I do not know whether the House is aware of the immense sums of money which have been given and the self-sacrifice on the part of individuals which has been shown by American citizens in all parts of the world under the American Red Cross. I believe that sympathy and assistance will flow steadily and continuously to help in the alleviation of the sufferings of these poor refugees. The only other thing I want to say is that German co-operation in this work is, of course, most desirable. If minorities are to be forced to leave the country of their birth, they must have the financial means to move. I cannot believe that this fact will be ignored by practical people like the Germans.
The Inter-Governmental Committee will meet again in London on Wednesday of next week. I understand that it is intended that there shall be a British chairman of that body, and His Majesty's Government have asked me to represent them and to be chairman. I am glad to say that I have reason to believe that Mr. Myron Taylor, the American delegate at Evian, and Senator Henri Bérenger, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Commiteee of the French Senate, who was the leading French delegate at Evian, will both be at the meeting next week, and will, I think, occupy important positions in the new Committee. The United States Government will be in a position to announce the name of the gentleman—I am not at liberty to give it at this moment—who will be put before the meeting for election as the administrator and executive officer of the new body. I am sure that we shall have the good will and support of the House in endeavouring to alleviate and mitigate, even if it is impossible to solve, this difficult and terrible problem.

SCOTLAND (PRISONS).

3.7 P.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I wish to raise a question affecting Scotland, but before doing so, I should like to say that I think every hon. Member who has listened to the speeches that have been made of the position of the Jews in Central Europe will wish the Government Godspeed in all their efforts to improve the position of the persecuted Jews. I have never been able to understand this persecution of the Jews, and I trust that every effort which the Government make will be successful in easing, if not in solving, the problem.
I always feel in these days that one ought to apologise to the House for raising a matter which is not connected with foreign affairs, and I feel like apologising now for raising a small matter affecting Scotland. The other day the Home Secretary announced a number of very decent reforms in the prison system in England. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to institute the same reforms in Scotland. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State for Scotland has not been able to institute, not wide, revolutionary reforms, but comparatively minor reforms, in the prison system in Scotland. The late Sir Godfrey Collins, when he was Secretary of State, was tackled on this subject


on a number of occasions, and I remember that he gave the assurance that Scotland would not lag behind. It was commonly said, not merely of prison matters, but of everything, that Scotland would not lag behind England, and that they would always institute the same reforms. Indeed, the late Sir Godfrey Collins went further, and on one occasion said that Scotland would lead in the van of progress in regard to prison reforms. A considerable amount of time has passed since then. The other day the Home Secretary announced various reforms, such as smoking for prisoners, payment of prisoners, and also concerning the removal of prisoners long distances temporarily to other prisons where relatives might have access to them from time to time.
The first matter which I wish to raise is in regard to long-term prisoners. I understood that the Home Secretary in England proposes that prisoners of this type shall be allowed to smoke, at least after they have served a period of their sentences. I know prisoners who have been in Peterhead for years and one of their greatest desires is to be allowed to smoke. What is there in connection with the Scottish prisons which makes it impossible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to institute this small but desirable reform? I understand that it involves no legislation and that the right hon. Gentleman could do it himself tomorrow. I also wish to know what objection, if any, there is to the introduction in Scotland of an earnings system similar to that of which the Home Secretary spoke in relation to English prisons. The Home Secretary was almost lyrical when he spoke of the success of this venture in England and read letters from both prisoners and governors showing how successful it had been.
There is another matter in connection with the long-term prisoners which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider. In the case of life sentences, or sentences of from 10 to 15 years, a considerable time elapses before the prisoners are allowed to receive visits from relatives. If a man is poor and his relatives are poor they have little chance of visiting Peterhead. I have visited Peterhead on, I think, nine different occasions. I went there to see a prisoner whose father I knew, and I may say, incidentally, that the governor never

attempted to show me any more than was shown to anybody else. I always thought that there was something in being a Member of Parliament and that the governor might, at least, have given me some insight into the life of the prison, but I never saw any more than the ordinary visitor saw. I suppose the governor was carrying out his job, but I always found the governors of Barlinnie and Duke Street Prisons very willing to show me the prisons at work. However, I leave that aside. I found Peterhead an impossible place for poor people from Glasgow to visit. I had to leave Glasgow at four o'clock in the morning when I went there and I did not return to my home until half-past seven in the evening. The railway fare is over £1 and it is necessary to take a bus from Aberdeen to Peterhead and back, and when meals are taken into consideration even on the most meagre scale, a visit there costs nearly £2 for each individual. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do one of two things—either extend to Scotland the Home Secretary's plan for transferring these long-term prisoners temporarily to a prison where they can easily be visited by their relatives or else make a grant to enable their relatives to visit them.
I would also bring to his attention the fact that prisoners are always anxious to get something to read. During the football season everyone wants to know the football results—who has won the Scottish Cup and all that kind of thing. It is a very natural desire. They want two things. Why should not the ordinary prisoner doing a long-term sentence get a newspaper to read every day, one that he would pick out himself, such as the "Scotsman," the "Glasgow Herald," the Dundee paper, the Aberdeen paper, or any other paper that he might desire each day? If there were some objectionable news in it, to which the Scottish Office objected, they could always cross it out by marking it off as is done in public libraries, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to try and see that the prisoners get each day at least one newspaper to read to keep him informed. The other thing that I was going to ask was this. We have in these modern days the wireless, and I understand that it is sometimes used in our prisons, though not regularly. Anyhow, it has been partially adopted, and I would ask that every night the wireless should be put on, not for the


use of each individual prisoner, but in the central hall, so that each prisoner, even if he is not allowed exercise, could hear the wireless each evening.
Further, will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing letters to be written home much more frequently? In the case of 5-, 10-, or 15-year or life sentences, the position in Scotland is that it is so long before a man can get a visit—I think, nearly six months or a year—and then, when a visit is allowed, the man has to watch that he does not get too many letters, because if he does, that cuts out his visits. I would say that at least two letters a week should be allowed from a prisoner, if he cares to write them. There is nothing that gives a prisoner an interest in life like writing back to his own people, particularly if he is a married man with young children, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider granting prisoners the facility of writing letters much more frequently than at present. Then there is the question of the improvement of the libraries inside the prisons. Something ought to be done in all the prisons, and particularly in Peterhead Prison, really to improve the libraries. I am sure the Glasgow Corporation and other library authorities have many books that have now reached the stage when there is not the same demand for them as formerly. All of us know that in fiction the demand eases off very quickly and many library authorities must have what Lord Rosebery at one time described as a cemetery of books. I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland could restock the prison libraries if he made an appeal to the libraries throughout the country.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in this matter of prison reform, not to lag behind England. The Home Secretary made a speech the other day that I said afterwards I should never have expected from him. It was a speech with a decent outlook and, I thought, very humane motives, and why should not the Secretary of State for Scotland, in running his prisons in Scotland, have the same humane outlook? I would also ask him to consider getting into touch with the English Home Office on this issue. Frequently a prisoner from England gets gaoled in Scotland, or vice versa, a prisoner from Scotland gets gaoled in England, and in such a case the question of visitation is, for the great

mass of the poorer people, almost hopeless. Why should not the Scottish Office and the Home Office have a sort of agreement to allow a change-over of such prisoners from one country to the other where they are serving a sentence of, say, over 12 months? I think it would make for ease in the visitation of these prisoners. I apologise for having raised this matter on the Adjournment, but I trust that the Secretary of State will see that before we assemble again the prison reforms that are being made in England will be instituted in Scotland and, indeed, that he will go further and pay particular attention to the lighting of prisons. I appeal to him to have electric light put in Peterhead Prison. There is no sense in keeping a prisoner more miserable than he need be. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look into the whole question of administration and see that these reforms are carried out as speedily and as humanely as possible.

3.21 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has no need to apologise for raising this question to-day. I am glad that he has given me the opportunity to add something to the reply which I gave to a question he asked earlier to-day about the prison reforms announced by the Home Secretary. I said then that some of those reforms were already operating in Scotland and that others were under consideration. I cannot answer all the hon. Member's points, because I must have time to look into them, but I can assure him that in regard to certain of the reforms about which the Home Secretary spoke two days ago, the Scottish Prisons Department is not behind and that consideration is being given to others. There has been an increase recently in the number of hours of associated labour and it will be agreed that that is a proper and humane move. It has also been possible recently to afford better facilities for physical training for prisoners of older ages. I cannot give further details now, but I am assured that in this respect the Scottish prisoners are given facilities which compare well, generally speaking, with those indicated by the Home Secretary.
The hon. Member referred to the improvement of the libraries and made an interesting suggestion as to how I could get more books. My information is that


during the last year there has been a real effort to improve and enlarge prison libraries and that the improvement made already compares with that described by the Home Secretary in regard to England. I will examine the hon. Member's suggestion for I agree with him that something more might be done in that direction. The hon. Member also referred to newspapers. During the past year the privilege of reading newspapers has been extended and instructions have been given that they should not be censored. Obviously the prisoners cannot read without light, and the hon. Member referred to the need for electric light to be introduced in all prisons. I am able to announce that by the end of next year there will be electric light in every Scottish prison except Kirkwall and Lerwick. Some of the prisons already have electric light in the ceilings of the cells, and lights are being so fixed in all new electric installations. As the hon. Member will appreciate, the importance of having the light in the ceiling is that such a light, as against a light which is simply filtering in from the passage outside, may be used for reading. Then the hon. Member asked me about smoking. At present certain categories of prisoners only are allowed to smoke, for example untried prisoners, aliens awaiting deportation, prisoners under sentence of death, and the inmates of the Criminal Lunatic Department.

Mr. Buchanan: But nobody at Peterhead.

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member asked when we intend to introduce into Scotland the change already made in England of allowing smoking generally, subject to certain conditions. That question is bound up with the wage-earning question, because the prisoners must have some money to buy tobacco. As soon as I have had some experience of the scheme instituted this year for reclassifying prisoners and convicts, I shall give consideration to the questions of wage-earning and the permission of smoking. I cannot undertake to say more than that to-day, but I will give the matter my close personal consideration. I intend during the Recess to visit personally a number of prisons in Scotland to satisfy myself about the conditions which have been referred to to-day.
As regards clothing, which I do not think was mentioned by the hon. Member,

new style clothing has been issued for female prisoners and I understand that it has been much appreciated by them. That is a recent change. The diet, also, has recently been improved, and the present diet scales are under my examination. I am considering them in comparison with the English diet scale in order to see that the relationship between the two scales is a fair one, allowing for differentces in the type of prisoners.

Mr. Buchanan: Will you see that Peterhead gets more, for the supply is terrible?

Mr. Colville: The diet scales are under review, as I have said. The expense of relatives travelling to Peterhead was also referred to. The Home Secretary has indicated, as regards England, that he is making arrangements to move prisoners for short periods to places where their relatives can visit them. In Scotland convicts are transferred to a local prison when near the end of their sentence in order to enable them to get into touch with prospective employers. If this practice were extended to the moving of prisoners to prisons where it would be easier for their relatives to visit them, the question of expense would arise. I will examine the suggestion, and I am looking into the English system to see whether any possible adaptation of it could be applied to Scotland. Up to now it has not been found possible to do so, and the cost has to be borne in mind. I cannot promise a grant from public funds towards the expenses of relatives travelling to see prisoners.
Another point with which I would deal relates to wireless sets. I am told that all Scottish prisons, except, up to now, Inverness, and all Borstal Institutions, have wireless sets. The hon. Member made some suggestions as to extending their use, but I am not sure whether it would be practicable. I will look into it. The remarks made by the hon. Member who raised this subject covered a wide field and I take the opportunity of saying that a good deal of work is being done by the Prisons Department for Scotland to keep our system up to date. For example, work has been in progress for some time on the new Criminal Lunatic Asylum and State Institution for Defectives and it is expected that the Institutions will be ready for occupation next year. A point was also raised regarding


prison officers' quarters. Work to provide 52 new quarters for the staff of Barlinnie Prison has been commenced and the work of building 12 houses is going on at the present time.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: As I raised that question, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to indicate when the houses were actually started?

Mr. Colville: I cannot say the date, but I know that they are in building at the present time.

Mr. Davidson: The date was November, 1929.

Mr. Colville: I promise the hon. Gentleman to look into the question which he has raised. He sent me a cutting from a magazine but it was much out of date. I hope we can get much more recent information on the question in which he is interested.
As I said at the beginning, the hon. Member for Gorbals need not apologise for raising these questions because I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying a word or two about them, and of assuring the House, and especially Scottish Members, that I am particularly interested in these branches of administration. I intend to give my personal attention to them during the Recess. While certain English reforms are already in operation in Scotland and are working satisfactorily, others, I assure the House, are being considered to see whether they can properly be applied to Scotland.

SPAIN.

3.33 P.m.

Duchess of Atholl: I am very glad to have this opportunity of emphatically refuting the suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) last Wednesday, when he gave my name with those of other hon. Members as patron of a fund for helping wounded members of the International Brigade and dependants of those serving or killed. He suggested that I had taken a share in recruiting men for the International Brigade in Spain, and therefore in evading the Foreign Enlistment Act. Owing to absence from this House during the last two days for reasons into which I need not enter, but which were unavoidable, I received

only to-day the notice that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was proposing to raise these questions, and that was why I could not be here on Wednesday to reply at once to the charges.
I have here the letter in which I was invited to give my name to this fund. It is dated 4th June, 1937, and the notepaper is headed: "International Brigade, Dependants and Wounded Aid Committee." It came to me from Professor J. B. S. Haldane, who said that he wrote to me on behalf of his wife:
She is acting as Secretary for the above Fund, which takes care of the wives and families of the men of the International Brigade, and also arranging adequate medical attention and treatment for the wounded. In this connection, she is preparing shortly to launch a big appeal and it would, of course, be invaluable if she were able to associate your name with this, as a patron of the Fund.
I find I replied on 7th June:
Dear Professor Haldane:
I shall be very glad to be patroness of the proposed Appeal, if it can be worded in such a way as not to make an attack on our Government. I am sure you will understand. Perhaps I might see a copy of the appeal before it goes to press.
Mrs. Haldane duly sent me a copy of the appeal, and I asked that certain alterations should be made, so that it should be perfectly clear that the appeal was made on a humanitarian basis only. Incidentally, I am glad to have the opportunity of pointing this out, because some people have tried to make out that, while I was still in receipt of the Government Whip, I was not being loyal to the Government. I think that what I have said will dispose of any suggestion of that kind. It is perfectly clear, from the letters I have had from Mrs. Haldane, that her Committee has nothing whatever to do with recruitment. She wrote to me on 28th July, 1938, on notepaper headed "International Brigade Dependants and Wounded Aid Committee, 1, Lichfield Street, W.C.2 ":
With reference to my own position and that of the members of my committee with regard to the question of men going to Spain, I can inform you definitely that neither I nor any member or members of my committee have at any time assisted in sending a single Englishman to Spain, or have been concerned in doing so. I might add to this that on several occasions I have been approached at meetings or on the telephone by young men anxious to volunteer to serve with the Government forces in Spain. On all such occasions my invariable reply has been that I had no information


in the matter, and that it was quite impossible for me to give them any assistance. This is also the case regarding all the members of my committee. Our activities consist in raising funds to help the dependants and wounded of the International Brigade. On occasion we have also endeavoured to obtain information at the request of relatives with reference to individual volunteers.

Captain Heilgers: Would the Noble Lady say what is the date of that?

Duchess of Atholl: The 28th July, when I informed Mrs. Haldane of the charges which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member against her committee. The hon. and gallant Member said that Mr. Coop had been given 7s. 6d. and subsequently the cost of a fare to Paris by her committee, or anyhow at her committee's headquarters, but both Mrs. Haldane—who is well known as the wife of a very distinguished professor, who belongs to a very distinguished and respected family—and her assistant at the office, emphatically deny that the committee gave Coop any money. They say that they have never helped, and the Committee have never helped, anyone to go to Spain. They have no authority to spend money on anything but humanitarian purposes. Further, Mr. Coop's father was informed that the Committee had no knowledge of his son having gone to Spain. On 5th May, 1938, a letter to this effect, signed by Mrs. Haldane, was sent to Mr. Coop, the father. It was as follows:
Dear Sir,—We are in receipt of your letter of May 2nd, and of course can fully appreciate that the bad news we had the responsibility of forwarding to you to the effect that your son was missing in Spain must have come as a great shock both to yourself and your wife. Needless to say, we sincerely sympathise with you in the anxiety which such bad news must inevitably give rise to. We would like to say, however, that we have no knowledge about your son having gone to Spain nor of any method adopted to recruit him. Our news about him was received directly from the headquarters of the battalion in Spain.
Therefore, Mr. Coop received a written communication from the Committee to the effect that they knew nothing about having recruited his son.
I claim, therefore, that the facts I have put before the House completely clear myself and the other six Members concerned. This communication from the committee, on the word of its responsible officer, shows that the hon. and gallant

Member has entirely misconceived the purpose for which the Committee exists. I am sure he has done it inadvertently because he has been misinformed, but as the statement he made is calculated to damage us in the eyes of some people in this country I would ask him if he will not offer an apology to us as he was good enough to do yesterday to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson).
There is another point that I feel I must refer to and that is the serious charge made by the young Mr. Coop that six deserters from the International Brigade were taken from a British ship at the quayside at Barcelona and shot. I cannot say that I feel the evidence on which the charge is made is very weighty. It was made by this young man, barely 18 years of age, who had been through trying experiences and whose nerve evidently had been rather shaken. I think I am justified in making that statement because he had deserted and it takes a good deal to make a man desert in war. We are justified, I think, in assuming that his courage at the time was not what it had been. Moreover, we are told that he was at the time actually hiding in the hold of the ship. Therefore we are entitled to ask if he actually saw anything of the shooting. I would also like to ask whether the hon. and gallant Member made any enquiries of the skipper of the ship, and if so what he learned. It seems to me, on the face of it, distinctly improbable that the Spanish Government, having ready to fight for them more men than they had arms to give them, should take such very drastic measures in regard to six foreigners who had deserted them. And as I find that the statement that the young man had received money to go to Spain from what the hon. and gallant Member thought was this committee is not correct, I must say that I do not regard him as a very creditable witness. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who did find the money?"] —I cannot possibly say. The special point I am concerned with is that it was not the committee to which I gave my name.
I would ask the hon. and gallant Member, at this moment when our Government is taking part in a scheme for withdrawing foreign soldiers from Spain, whether he really thinks it worth while taking up the time of the House and casting reflections on other hon. Members, in order to stop what must be a very


small trickle of volunteers, if any trickle is going on at all. As I say, we are hoping that in the next few months there will be complete withdrawal of foreign soldiers from Spain, but I must express my doubt whether that plan will really lead to complete withdrawal of volunteers, because it has so many gaps in it—the gap in air control and the very incomplete control in many ports in the hands of the insurgents. I fear this will make it possible for assistance to reach the insurgents while the scheme is in process of withdrawing some of the troops. I fear also that the number of translators to be attached to the observers counting the troops is likely to be insufficient to ensure that every observer who counts troops has a translator with him. Moreover, the translators will need to have an extraordinary knowledge of Spanish to know whether a man is speaking Spanish as a Spaniard does or speaking it with a German or Italian accent, and I have the greatest fear as to the way in which General Franco will exercise the belligerent rights which it is proposed to give him when an unknown number of foreign troops have been withdrawn from Spain.

3.45 P.m.

Miss Rathbone: At this late hour I do not want to go over the ground covered by the noble Lady and, on a previous occasion, by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). I will only say, like them, that I have nothing to do, either directly or indirectly, with the recruitment of volunteers for the International Brigade, and I am quite convinced that the organisation to which the hon. Member referred has had nothing to do with it either. I think the sole ground of his charge is that a certain letter was readdressed by the hon. Member for Jarrow to 1, Lichfield Street, which happens to be the address of the committee which deals with applications for aid from the dependants of the wounded, and that in another part of that building someone has, occasionally or habitually—I do not know which, and I do not know who the person is—let a room for interviews with young men who want to go to Spain. That, I think, is the foundation of the charge. I want to say that, as people have been included in the charges who are not here to reply for themselves, I would like to remind the House of an article in the

"Law Quarterly Review" for October, 1937, by Professor (now Vice-Chancellor) McNair, the celebrated authority on international affairs, who in connection with the Foreign Enlistment Act said:
We do not often enforce this part of it, and it is notorious that British subjects are found fighting in nearly every war that occurs.
Then, after alluding to the doubts that exist on the subject, he says:
I need hardly tell this audience that if these"—
that is, serving or inducing to serve—
are not criminal offences, no amount of Governmental prohibition will make them so
Then he says:
The words that trouble me a little are at war.' Can it be held by a British court that there is a war in Spain when our Government has declined to grant recognition of belligerency and reiterates that it has granted belligerent rights to either side?
He seems to think that, on the whole, if the matter was dealt with by a court of law, the court would probably decide that the British Government were in the right, and that the Act did apply to Spain; but he shows that there is some confusion and no one can suggest that, even after the Foreign Office have made an announcement, anyone indulging in these activities is unquestionably performing an illegal act. We are approaching the silly season, and I can only think that this is a forerunner of the approaching apparition of the Loch Ness monster. We pride ourselves on a reputation for sportsmanship. It is not a good instance of that, that an hon. Member of this House should be anxious for His Majesty's Government to apply special legislation to make it certain that the Act does apply to the Spanish war, when the only effect would be to stop up a tiny trickle, if even that is going on, of men going out to the assistance of the Spanish Government, which is fighting for democracy, when we all know of the enormous number of men who are going from Italy and Germany to fight for the insurgents. If the hon. Member's advice were taken, I think it would become a classic instance in history of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

3.50 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: May I say to the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who talks about the Loch Ness monster, that I


personally think that it is not a question of the Loch Ness monster; this illegal traffic in human lives is monstrous. I recognise the sincerity of the noble Lady who raised this question and of the hon. Lady who followed her and of all the Members concerned in this particular matter, but I submit to the House and to them that they have been deliberately misled. I have evidence here that they have been misled, and perhaps they will bear with me while I read four letters. Perhaps the first two or three may not seem so relevant, but they lead up to the eventual letter which is the relevant one.
The first letter was dated 7th June this year, to the Secretary of the Communist Party in London:
Dear Comrade, I am very keen to join the British battalion of the International Brigade of the Spanish Government forces as a volunteer, and I shall be pleased if you will help me to attain my ambition. I am aware, of course, that it is possibly illegal, but I feel sure that there is some way of overcoming this difficulty. Hoping you will give me all the help possible. Thanking you for your kind and prompt attention, Yours fraternally, J. Smith.

Duchess of Atholl: Is that not Mr. Coop under an assumed name?

Captain Heilgers: That is right. The next letter is that of the 11th June addressed to J. Smith by the Communist party of Great Britain:
Central Committee, 16, King Street, Covent Garden. Dear Comrade, In reply to your letter of 7th June, we regret to say it is not possible for us to help you in the way you suggest for reasons which we are sure you will appreciate. There are a number of questions involved which it is not possible to accept responsibility for. We assure you we very deeply regret that this is the case as we very much appreciate the attitude you express in your letter. With good wishes, Yours fraternally, the Secretariat.
Mr. Smith wrote back again on 13th June to the Secretariat of the Communist party of Great Britain, Central Committee:
Dear Comrade, I wish to thank you for your letter of the 11th instant, and I need hardly say I am very disappointed with what you say. My chum, who lived in Manchester, wrote to Miss Ellen Wilkinson about the same matter, and she referred him to you, in consequence of which he was fortunate to leave for the International Brigade. In January last I thought possibly you might have helped me also in order that I could join him. Please do what you can for me. Looking forward to your favourable reply, Yours fraternally, J. Smith.

The reply to that is from "The International Brigade Dependants and Wounded Aid Committee." It is headed Honorary Secretary, Charlotte Haldane, and addressed to Mr. J. Smith, and it carries, on the left-hand side of it, the names of all the Members of Parliament I have mentioned:
Dear Comrade, Your letter of the 13th June was passed to us by the Communist party for attention. Would it be possible for you to get to Norwich for the purpose of having a talk with Mr. M. Cornforth, of 3, Church Street, Norwich, who may be able to advise you on the matter which you raise in your letter.
On that letter I would suggest that the Noble Lady has been misled and that the International Brigade Dependants and Wounded Aid Committee were willing to do what even the Communist party would not do.

Duchess of Atholl: Who signed that letter?

Captain Heilgers: It is signed, "Yours fraternally, M. A. Johnson."

Duchess of Atholl: I do not know the name of M. A. Johnson; I should have to ascertain who M. A. Johnson was. I have had many explicit assurances that our committee know nothing about it. If my hon. and gallant Friend's informant was capable of taking the name of Smith, it is quite possible for other people to use notepaper that does not belong to them.

Miss Rathbone: May I remind the hon. and gallant Member that by his own admission Coop is an agent provocateur, capable of adopting an assumed name and of trying to lead an organisation into doing an act which he believes to be illegal, because it had something to do with his son.

Captain Heilgers: As I said before, I do not seek to justify the action which Mr. Coop took, but I would remind the hon. Lady that parents who have their sons filched away from them without warning arid without their knowledge, may have some possible excuse. Mr. Coop writes to me:
It is very obvious from what evidence there is, as to who is responsible for this horrid business, and I would ask you to please do all that is possible to have these people punished. My wife and I both feel that even if we were to lose our son we may be the means of preventing other parents


from losing theirs also. Therefore, from that point of view we shall do all we can to bring these people to heel.
I am sorry, having regard to my respect for the Noble Lady, and the hon. Lady, to have to take this line, but I must say that, having again looked through the evidence which I submitted in my speech last Thursday, right from the beginning to the end, the actions of this so-called International Brigade Dependants and Wounded Aid Committee, justify me in saying that they have been the cause or many young men going to Spain, even though the Noble Lady may not know it, and I can do nothing else but stick to my guns and say that I adhere to everything I have said.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Wise: I wish to condole with those hon. Members who have associated themselves with this so-called Dependants Aid Committee in the unfortunate coincidence of their sharing the address of what appears to be a recruiting agency for the Spanish Government forces. I do not believe that any illegal action has been taken. I do not believe that the Foreign Enlistment Act applies, but I do think, illegal or not, that it is repulsive and disgusting that young men should be deluded into offering their lives for a cause recruited by the eloquence of hon. Members of this House, who in their speeches in the country never cease to urge young men to take up arms in a quarrel which is none of theirs.

Duchess of Atholl: To whom is my hon. Friend referring?

Mr. Wise: I was referring to almost every Member of the Opposition who has been reported as having made a public speech on this matter, who always urges that extreme support should be given to the Spanish Government. Whether the Noble Lady has herself persuaded the people to join the Spanish Government forces, I do not know.

Duchess of Atholl: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wise: Since she joined the Opposition I have not followed her speeches with the attention that I once did. I do want to say, in conclusion, that there is no excuse for these people smuggling young Englishmen and sending them to almost certain slaughter, either from the machine guns of General Franco or apparently—I see no reason to doubt it —the firing squads of the Spanish Government, and I hope that as soon as possible those hon. Members——

It being Four of the Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The Government Orders of the Day were read and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2, until Tuesday, 1st November, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.

Adjourned at One minute after Four o'Clock.